We the People - Montana Patient Protection Act

Senator Greg Hinkle, Montana State Senator, announced the introduction of the Montana Patient Protection Act, an Act that includes the reversal of the Baxter decision by the Montana Court. Baxter didn't legalize assisted suicide in Montana but created a defense of consent.

Senator Hinkle has been working for many months to refine the Montana Patient Protection Act.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition congratulates Senator Hinkle on his work and we will urge the Montana State Senate to support the Montana Patient Protection Act.

The following is the article that was written by Senator Greg Hinkle and published in The Clark Fork Chronicle:
---------------------------------------------------------

Montana Patient Protection Act

The Clark Fork Chronicle - Sunday, May 30 2010

by Sen. Greg Hinkle

http://www.clarkforkchronicle.com/article.php/20100530155921580

I have introduced the Montana Patient Protection Act which prohibits physician-homicide and physician-assisted suicide ("aid in dying"). The Act is in response to the Supreme Court decision Baxter v. State of Montana. This Act is based on Montana's public policy to prevent elder abuse and to value all citizens.

Baxter holds that a patient's consent to physician-assisted suicde "constitutes a statutory defense to a charge of homicide against the aiding physician." In Baxter the court overlooked elder abuse. The court stated the only person "who might conceivably be prosecuted for criminal behavior is the physician who prescribes a lethal dose of medication." The court overlooked criminal behavior by family members and others who may benefit from a patient's death, for example, due to an inheritance. Although an aiding perpetrator faces a charge of homicide, "aid in dying" is commonly referred to as "assisted suicide". The term "aid in dying" is also used to describe euthanasia.

There are two states that allow physician-assisted suicide, Washington and Oregon. The vast majority of states that have consided such laws have rejected them. In 2010, a bill to legalize physician-assisted suicde was defeated in the New Hampshire House of Representatives in a bi-partisan vote of 242-113. A similar law was recently defeated in the Canadian Parliment by 228-59.

In Montana, there has been "rapid growth" of elder abuse. Nationwide, elder financial abuse is a crime "growing in intensity" with perpetrators often family members, but also strangers and new "best friends". Abuse of the elderly and other vulnerable adults is often subtle and difficult to detect. Victims are often unwilling to report due to embarrassment or a desire to protect family members.

Allowing a victim to consent to physician-assisted suicide creates another path of abuse. For example, a perpetrator could encourage an older person to request a lethal dose and then administer the dose without his consent. The older person's prior request, voluntary or not, would provide the alibi. With the difficulty of detecting and proving homicide, generally, and the difficulties in preventing and detecting abuse specifically, considering the unwillingness of victims to report, it is against public policy to allow a victim to consent to his own homicide.

The Baxter decision applies to "terminally ill" patients. Doctor progonoses of life expectancy can be wrong. I have a close relative, who at age 52 had a serious heart attack and was given a prognosis of no more than eight years to live. That was over thirty years ago and many grandchildren, great grandchildren later he is still enjoying life. Allowing physician-assisted suicide will thus result in some Montanans, with many good years left, cutting their lives short. This situation will be even more evident if the proponents' definition of "terminally ill adult patient" is adopted by the authorities. This defintion is broad enough to include a young person dependent on insulin or a young man with stable HIV/AIDS, who could have "decades to live". Encouraging Montanans to shorten their lives is contrary to Montana public policy, which seeks to "improve and protect the health and well being, and self reliance" of all Montanans.

Allowing physician-assisted suicide will open the door to the "Barbara Wagner" scenario. Wagner was a resident of Oregon with lung cancer. The Oregon Health Plan refused to pay for a drug to possibly prolong her life and offered to pay for "aid in dying" instead. Unable to afford the drug, she was steered to suicide. Wagner stated, "I am not ready, I am not ready to die". Will young persons with diabetes or HIV/AIDS be the next Barbara Wagners? Montana already has one of the highest suicides rates in the nation. It is a state priority to reduce the suicide rate for persons "of all ages". Steering citizens to kill themselves is contrary to this policy.

Montana values all of its citizens, including those who are older or may have chronic conditions or other disabilities. Baxter overlooked elder abuse. It is against public policy to allow consent to homicide; to encourage Montanans to cut their lives short or steer them to suicide. Montanans should reject "aid in dying."

Readers interested in my source materials can view them in my "Report to the Senate for LC0041, The Montana Patient Protection Act". My contact email is ghinklesd7@gmail.com or phone 406-827-4645

5 Reasons Why People Devalue the Elderly

This is a guest column by Kitty Holman, who writes on the topics of Nursing Schools.

All around us in modern Western society is evidence that elderly adults who cannot care for themselves on their own are being abused and neglected. I believe that much of this is a result of a general social disregard for this vulnerable population group. This broad disregard is such that many of them—especially those with disabilities and those living with chronic pain—would rather have their lives ended for them than go on living in a world where they perceive they are not valued. Yes, we can certainly see the evidence. But have we ever stopped to consider why it is that so many in our society think treating the elderly this way is acceptable? Here I will attempt to answer the great "why" question.

1. Us-versus-them mentality. In the early 1980s, a German-born American scholar named Wolf Wolfensberger proposed his relationship theory called Social Role Valorization. The theory suggested that society tends to categorize certain groups of people (them) as fundamentally "different" and of less value than everyone else (us). This theory is not only evident in how many regard the elderly who cannot entirely care for themselves, but it is also evident in the way many people routinely ignore the homeless, do not make eye contact with people with disabilities of all ages, and do not feel entirely at ease with people of a different race. Society has a habit of stacking up reasons why someone is different from them and using those reasons to place a lower value on that person.

2. The tendency to "shoot" our weak and wounded. The theory of evolution suggests that only the strong survive. The danger here is taking the theory to the point where it becomes an ideology—that only the strong should survive. However, evidence of this concept is apparent in a number of social groups. Many religious groups routinely ostracize and shun those among them who are "spiritually weak" and commit more visible "sins," rather than reaching out to pull them back into fellowship. In the business world, instead of working to improve weak performers, many bosses cut their losses, and hire new talent. Some part of human nature sincerely believes they will be considered weak—and fail socially—if they associate themselves with weak people; they believe if they rescue someone from drowning, they too will drown. For the elderly who need our help, this can mean their needs go ignored. After all, only the strong survive.

3. Lack of compassion. Compassion and respect for the elderly don't always come naturally—they are most often learned character traits. These traits must be instilled in us as children or demonstrated to us in some other way in our adult life. Parents do not always teach their children from an early age to treat the elderly with the utmost respect.

4. The idea that one's value is based on what one can contribute to society. The subtle undercurrent here is that the elderly no longer have the ability to "repay" the "debt" of care that is given them. Even if they recover and their pain is adequately managed, they are still knocking on death's door—why waste efforts on someone who will only be around for a short time? A child or younger adult, if he or she is cared for, may yet recover and go on to contribute to society. Therefore, we devalue the elderly.

5. Youth-centric culture. Western culture, especially the U.S., is obsessed with youth, unlike other cultures who respect and even revere older individuals for their wisdom. Society as a whole believes our children are worth fighting valiantly for when they are ill or in pain, but does not generally fight as hard for their elderly, who have already lived their lives and are no longer part of society's warped ideal—young, vibrant, and beautiful.

This guest post is contributed by Kitty Holman, who writes on the topics of Nursing Schools at: http://www.nursingschools.net/blog/. 

Attacks on the Schindler family are unfounded. The real question is what did Michael Schiavo do with all the money?

Standing in solidarity against an evil and unfounded attack.

A recent attack news program by a television station in Florida has created a controversy over the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation. They have accused the Schindler family of lining their pockets with foundation money.

Wesley Smith reported the complaint in his article that was published in the National Review online. Schiavo was reported as saying to the attack news program:

Schiavo’s widower, Michael Schiavo, says the family should be ashamed of what they are doing. He adds if Terri ever knew this was happening she’d be horrified. Michael Schiavo is talking about the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation. While Terri Schiavo’s brother Bobby says the organization is set up to help families in similar situations, Michael Schiavo says he doesn’t believe it. Instead Schiavo says they are using their deceased sister’s name to make money.

Smith destroyed the accusations in his article when he stated:
"And as for profiteering–Bobby Schindler’s salary is $37,500 annually, and all speaking fees he receives go to the foundation. His sister Suzanne, makes less and is 14 months in arrears in receiving her compensation. It is also worth noting, that after receiving complaints, the IRS investigated the foundation and gave it a clean bill of health in 2008."

An article written by Pamela Hennessy that was published in the North County Gazette reveals even more about the false accusations in the attack news program. She stated:

the Foundation provided the reporter with their latest 990 income and expense filing, a letter from the Internal Revenue Service (giving the Foundation notice of compliance and approval for the continuance of their tax-exempt 501(c)3 status) and a letter from their attorney, asking that the report be tabled in light of the Schindlers’ good standing with the authorities.

Care to guess which one of those documents were posted to WTSP’s website? Yes. Just the letter from the attorney. Deeson kept the other, rather pertinent, information from viewers.

Mark Mostert, from the Institute for the Study of Disability and Bioethics stated:

All innuendo and spin. Why would we expect anything else? Even all these years after her death, Bobby, Suzanne, and Mary spend countless hours trying to correct misleading reporting about the circumstances of Terri’s death. This is just one more media attack in a long string of animus posing as “news” and comes just a few weeks after Fox’s The Family Guy made horrible fun of Terri and her disabled condition.

Concerning the attack by Michael Schiavo, the man who used the money that was awarded by the courts to care for Terri for the rest of her natural life, that the Schindlers are not even fulfilling the goals of the Foundation. Smith correctly stated:

Had the reporters wanted to find out the kind of help the foundation offers others, producers could have called me or a myriad of others active in this field, who are quite aware of the selfless giving and effort each surviving member of Terri’s family offers to others. Indeed, I have personal knowledge of case after case in which the Schindlers worked selflessly–and without financial compensation of any kind–to assist family members save their cognitively disabled loved ones from suffering the same dehydration fate as Terri. The Lauren Richardson food and fluids dispute and the Andrea Clarke futile care case are just two that come to mind.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition arranged to have Randy Richardson, the father of Lauren Richardson, speak at the Second-International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide that we had co-hosted near Washington DC. Like Wesley, I can attest to the fact that the Schindler family has been incredibly successful in helping families prevent a similar fate to their loved ones, as had happened to Terri.

The Schindler family have been operating the Foundation on a tight budget. The reports prove that the charitable money they received in 2008 was less than $100,000 and yet they have done an incredible service with that budget.

The real question is: What did Michael Schiavo do with the money that was awarded for the care of Terri for the rest of her life?

Article by Wesley Smith in the National Review online:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/05/01/i-stand-in-solidarity-with-the-schindlers-against-sleazy-media-attack/

Article by Pamela Hennessy in the North County Gazette:
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2010/05/01/all_the_news/

My blog article about dehydration deaths:
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/02/stop-dehydration-deaths-says-terri.html

The original article attacking the Schindler family:
http://www.13wmaz.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=78447&catid=28

Texas: Murder of Disabled Spouse Yields Probation for Wife

This is a reprint of the blog entry by Stephen Drake from Not Dead Yet. This is a very important blog entry.

Texas has a reputation for doling out pretty harsh treatment when it comes to murder. Apparently - in Austin, anyway - exceptions will be made if the victim is devalued enough.

Last Friday, Katherine "Kim" Yarbrough received ten years of probation in a plea bargain. Yarbrough had admitted to killing her husband, Lloyd Yarbrough. Nevertheless, she was allowed to plead to "injury to a disabled individual."

From the article in the Austin-American Statesman:

Police say Yarbrough admitted killing her husband, Lloyd, 62, by injecting his feeding tube with an assortment of crushed prescription pills. She then swallowed some drugs of her own, police have said. A police officer found the couple in bed May 27 at their home on Meadowview Lane, near Lamar and Research boulevards in North Austin.

Here is what the authorities have to say about the plea deal:

Outside court Friday, prosecutor Amy Meredith said that considering the facts of the case and Yarbrough's clean criminal history, District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg did not think that a prison term was warranted.

Meredith noted that for years when selecting jurors in murder cases, prosecutors had used an example similar to Yarbrough's — when one spouse kills another to end that spouse's suffering — as a type of murder case that might warrant a probation sentence. (emphasis added.)

The problem with that rationale - and its reported in the article, but not as a problem, is that Kim Yarbrough never claimed to have killed her husband to end his suffering:

She blogged about her frustrations with outside caregivers and a lack of a support system.

"I wonder if I will ever change Lloyd's diaper without feeling the pain of what has been lost," she blogged four days before his death.

Two days before his death, she wrote, "Why should I keep living through all this?"

While in the hospital, Yarbrough was interviewed by police. According to an arrest affidavit, she told an officer that she killed her husband "because she was tired of taking care of him." When an officer asked her if Lloyd Yarbrough wanted to die, she said "no," the affidavit said. (emphasis added.)

There is no way to reconcile Kim Yarbrough's statements to the police with the statements of the prosecutor attempting to explain this plea bargain. I guess they figure in Austin that if you're a "caregiver" you also get to end that role, in whatever way you see fit. I guess they figure that killing someone as disabled as Lloyd Yarbrough isn't the same as a "real" murder.

If you think I'm being too harsh, several of the comments to this story have people praising this woman - evidently they don't know how to read or they don't think what Lloyd Yarbrough wanted mattered. --Stephen Drake

Ontario closes its eyes to elder abuse

An article in the Toronto Star the other day really outlined the lack of concern for the problem of Elder Abuse in Ontario.

The article by Carol Goar on April 26, 2010 concerning the defeat of the elder abuse bill by John O'Toole stated:

Conservative backbencher John O'Toole was puzzled when four Liberal cabinet ministers showed up to vote on his private member's bill.

The provincial government didn't normally devote such high-level attention to opposition proposals. And this one wasn't even controversial. A previous version of the same bill had sailed through second reading (approval in principle) two years ago, but died on the order paper when Premier Dalton McGuinty prorogued the session.

All O'Toole was asking the government to do was instruct the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (the agency responsible for adults who are mentally incapable of managing their affairs) to set up a public registry of individuals with power of attorney for those who have relinquished control of their finances.

Such a database would allow concerned relatives, friends, bankers, accountants and nursing home officials to find out who is in charge of an elderly person's property. It would also facilitate police investigations into complaints by vulnerable seniors and their caregivers.

“It's a non-partisan issue,” O'Toole insisted. As proof, he pointed out that his bill was at odds with his own non-interventionist ideology. “As a Conservative, I want less government, but this is an area where we need more government.”

His hopes withered when Liberal MPP David Zimmer, parliamentary secretary to the attorney general, spoke. The Willowdale politician said he could not support the bill because it violated the wishes of many aging parents. At the behest of their doctor or a financial adviser, they had designated one of their children or a friend or lawyer to act on their behalf, should they become incapacitated. But they wanted this information to be kept private. Their desire should be respected, Zimmer argued.

A few minutes later, Khalil Ramal, a Liberal backbencher from London, chimed in. “I think this bill does not serve seniors well. I'm not going to vote for this bill, not because I don't like the member for Durham — he's a great member — but hey, it doesn't fit with the direction of the legalities.”

After this bewildering statement, O'Toole was invited by the Speaker to respond. Recognizing the futility of a last-ditch appeal, he acknowledged the inevitable. “This is not going to become law. I fully understand this.”

His bill was soundly defeated. Six MPPs (four Tories and two New Democrats) said yes. Twenty three MPPs (all Liberals) said no.

“I was surprised they wouldn't even let it go to a committee,” O'Toole said afterward. “That's what that I was really hoping for.”

He hasn't given up. But he has no idea how to get elder abuse back on the legislative agenda.

What troubles O'Toole most is the lack of awareness of the extent and seriousness of this problem. He was as ignorant as everyone else, he admitted, until a constituent opened his eyes. It simply wasn't a topic of conversation in business or social circles. Looking back on his 30-year management career at General Motors, he couldn't remember anyone ever mentioning it. Nor did it come up during his four years as a municipal councillor or his nine years as a school board trustee.

He's still no expert, O'Toole stresses. But he's dealt with enough cases of frail seniors losing their homes, savings, investments and possessions to know the problem is real and more prevalent than people think. He's also learned a great deal from the Durham police, who have two officers working full-time on elder abuse, and from the strong coalition of volunteers, social service providers and health professionals working to protect vulnerable seniors in his riding.

For their sake, he wishes his bill had passed. For Ontario's sake, he hopes the government wakes up.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/800155--ontario-closes-its-eyes-to-elder-abuse

WE WON - Bill C-384 was defeated, 228 to 59

Bill C-384, the private members bill that would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada was strongly defeated by a vote of 228 to 59.

We would like to thank every member of parliament who voted against Bill C-384. We would also like to thank all of our supporters who made this victory possible. Months of work have resulted in an incredible victory. But the battle is not over.

We are working to turn the debate on this issue to a debate on how Canadians can live with dignity.

We recognize that many people have raised legitimate concerns.

It is our goal to work with members of parliament and other Canadian leaders to identify ways to:

- improve palliative/hospice care throughout Canada, 

- change attitudes and improve services for people with disabilities, 

- institute an effective national suicide prevention strategy, 

- promote programs that identify and eliminate the scourge of elder abuse.

We must continue to build a nation that upholds the dignity of all its citizens.
We must continue to create a paradigm that protects all Canadians, including its most vulnerable.
We reject the concept that killing can be the answer to problems that are properly solved by a caring society.

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

Please enable the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition to continue its successful work by making a donation today.

Our investment of resources to defeat Bill C-384 has left us with a huge financial need. http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Donations.htm

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Responds to Francine Lalonde’s National Post Article

Today, Francine Lalonde published an article in the National Post promoting her private members bill, Bill C-384, which would legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide for those 18 years and older.

Lalonde’s article omits the topic of elder abuse and misrepresents the bill’s provisions.

In Canada, elder abuse is a widespread problem, which is often unreported. Older persons with money are a prime target with family members the usual perpetrators. See e.g. Canada’s official website at: http://www.seniors.gc.ca/c.4nt.2nt3col@.jsp?lang=eng&geo=110&lang=eng&geo=169&cid=161

Perpetrators can also be strangers, for example, Melissa Friedrich, Canada's “Internet Black Widow.”

Contrary to Lalonde’s article, C-384 lacks basic protections for patients. For example, the patient is not required to be lucid at the time of application. A patient must only “appear” to be lucid. C-384 also allows an heir, who will benefit from the death, to serve as power of attorney to approve the euthanasia or assisted suicide. The death is also not required to be witnessed by disinterested persons. Without witnesses, the opportunity is created for someone else to administer the lethal agent to the patient without the patient’s consent. Even if the patient struggled, who would know?

C-384 is a recipe for elder abuse. For more detailed information, see memo to parliament: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/1016_001.pdf

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

Margaret Dore, Lawyer
www.margaretdore.com

Life with Dignity is the right of every Canadian.

Every Canadian deserves excellent end-of-life care.

Every Canadian deserves to be treated with equality, especially people with disabilities and those who live with chronic physical or mental pain.

Every Canadian deserves to be protected from undue influence and be provided respect.

Bill C-384 is not limited to terminally illness, it allows euthanasia and assisted suicide for people who experience chronic physical or mental pain.

Bill C-384 defines competency as “appearing to be lucid.” In other words you do not have to be actually lucid, and

Bill C-384 is a recipe for elder abuse, it does not require a witness at the time of death and employs a relaxed standard of competency, “appearing to be lucid”. Considering the prevalence of elder abuse in Canada today, every MP should oppose this bill.

Every Canadian deserves excellent care, not to be killed.

Members of Parliament need to soundly defeat Bill C-384

Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Box 25033, London ON N6C 6A8
1-877-439-3348
euthanasiaprevention@on.aibn.com

Physician-assisted suicide is not “legal” in Montana; doctors and others participate at their peril.

From the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Montana State Senator Greg Hinkle:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition & Montana State Senator Greg Hinkle: Physician-assisted suicide is not “legal” in Montana; doctors and others participate at their peril.

MONTANA. Today, the Missoulian reported that the suicide/ euthanasia promotion group, Compassion & Choices, has claimed that more than one Montanan has used physician-assisted suicide since a Montana Supreme Court ruling was issued on December 31, 2010. http://www.missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_f857084e-4402-11df-8d38-001cc4c002e0.html.

The ruling in Baxter v. State, did not, however, “legalize” physician-assisted suicide in Montana. Baxter instead held that a physician accused of homicide for killing his or her patient would be allowed to assert a “consent of the victim defense.” Read analysis here: http://www.montanafamily.org/portfolio/pdfs/Baxter_Decision_Analysis_v2.pdf

Tellingly, the Missoulian article does not give the names of the doctors or other persons allegedly involved, who if they were involved, face potential criminal and civil liability or professional discipline.

Public policy reasons against physician-assisted suicide include its potential for abuse, for example, by an heir with designs on an older person’s assets.

April 9, 2010.
Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
1-877-439-3348

Senator Greg Hinkle
Montana state Senate
406-827-4645

Netherlands study promotes greater access to euthanasia

A study from the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL) that was published in the British Journal of General Practice states that:

"The number of requests for euthanasia in the Netherlands has not risen since an act to decriminalise it came into force in 2002."

It is possible that the requests for euthanasia in the Netherlands have not increased but deaths by euthanasia have certainly increased and deaths by sedation and dehydration have sky-rocketed since 2002.

The Nivel study then recommended that euthanasia should be included in a general practitioner's training.

Since most general practitioner's do not euthanize their patients, is the study promoting a euthanasia training module in order to weed out physicians who are not willing to kill their patients?

The Nivel study also suggested that:

"Nursing homes and hospitals should publish policies on euthanasia so patients are able to take it into consideration when choosing their care provider. The researchers say that one benefit of the 2002 act is that it removes any need for secrecy regarding euthanasia."

It appears that Nivel is attempting to increase the availability of euthanasia by promoting nursing homes and physicians who are willing to kill their patients.

Nivel researcher Gé Donker, who is also a physician, was quoted as saying:

"It's (euthanasia) not something any general practitioner enjoys doing. It's always hard to practise euthanasia and it's emotionally taxing for the doctor. You choose the profession to provide optimal care and euthanasia may be a part of it. A doctor only practises euthanasia out of empathy for the patient who requests it."

Dr. Donker should consider that it is difficult for a physician to euthanize their patients because humans appear to have an innate repulsion to killing others. Nivel should be promoting effective care and symptom management for every person in the Netherlands rather than greater access to euthanasia.

Link to the article: http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/no-increase-euthanasia-legalisation

David Cameron will oppose the legalization of assisted suicide in the UK

David Cameron, the leader of the conservative party in the UK, has stated in the UK media that he opposes the legalization of assisted suicide.

Speaking to The Catholic Herald, Cameron stated:

"My personal view is that if assisted dying is legalised, there is a danger that terminally ill people may feel pressurised into ending their lives if they feel they've become a burden on loved ones,"

"I don't believe anyone should be put in this position. So no, I don't support any change in the law."

Now that an election has been called in the UK, the position of a politician on the issue of assisted suicide has become particularly relevant and should be an issue that many people use as a barometer to determine how they will vote.

The issue of assisted suicide is particularly relevant since Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions in the UK, released assisted suicide guidelines that make it less-likely that a person will be prosecuted for assisted suicide if they are a family member or if the person who died had a disability.

Cameron is currently the front-runner in the election, but like any political campaign, it is anybodies race until the vote is cast.

Page's death puts spotlight on euthanasia

An article from New Zealand that is written by Emma Joliff sadly reminds us of the tragedy that occurred five years ago with the death of Terri Schiavo, who like Margaret Page, died of dehydration.

The difference between Page and Schiavo is that Terri could not have chosen to die by dehydration whereas sadly, Margaret Page willingly dehydrated herself to death.

The article states:

There is fresh debate around euthanasia following the death of Margaret Page, who had refused food for more than two weeks.

The 60-year-old suffered a disabling haemorrhage 19 years ago, and euthanasia supporters say her decision should never have been made public.

Ms Page led an active, outdoor life before suffering her crippling brain haemorrhage.

A euthanasia advocate says starvation is a painful and distressing death, and there should have been a more humane alternative.

It should be noted that Margaret Page did not die of starvation but rather dehydration, nonetheless, the tragedy is not that Page did not have the option of being killed by lethal injection but rather that she felt that dying by dehydration was preferable to living with the care that was available to her.

Lesley Martin leader of pro-euthanasia group Dignity NZ stated:

While starving yourself is ethically challenging, it's not illegal.

Margaret Page was admitted to disability facility St John of God four years ago

St John of God commented by saying:

"Food and water had been offered to Mrs Page by staff members whenever they went into her room and at regular intervals. Mrs Page maintained her resolve to refuse food until the very end of her life."

Sadly, Margaret Page felt that her life was not worth living. The reality is that she refused food and fluids, an situation which is different than Terri Schiavo who was denied food and fluids.

The Page story is not a reason to consider legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide but rather to provide greater care for people who live with debilitating conditions as well as the need for greater mental health services.

Link to the article: http://www.3news.co.nz/Pages-death-puts-spotlight-on-euthanasia/tabid/423/articleID/148998/Default.aspx

Elder Abuse In and Out of Nursing Homes a Growing Problem

The Australian government has released a new report concerning the increased incidence of Elder Abuse. Greater awareness concerning the crime of elder abuse is necessary in the same way as greater awareness of the crime of child abuse has led to effective prevention strategies.

There is a serious problem within society, care homes, and behind the closed doors of family life concerning the care of the elderly. Whether it be inappropriate care in long-term care facilities or family members abusing elder family members, I believe that the solution to the problem is only beginning.

The euthanasia lobby actually believe that legalizing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide will not lead to the ultimate elder abuse(death by supposed choice) is ridiculous.

At the same time the euthanasia lobby intentionally promotes vaguely worded legislation to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide based on the ideology that they need to make the legislation appear to have safeguards without the safeguards actually having teeth. In other words, the euthanasia lobby is only interested in making legislation appear to have safeguards because actual safeguards may prevent them from being killed when they don't "qualify" for death but are just tired of living.

Francine Lalonde introduced Bill C-384, to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada, with vague and conflicting language. She fears for her future and wishes to have someone kill her by euthanasia and she wouldn't want the wording of her bill to actually create a safeguard or a hurdle that may prevent her from being killed by euthanasia.

I accurately state - being killed, because euthanasia is when another person, usually a physician, is given the legal right to cause your death by lethal injection, or some other means.

Anyway, please read the article. The statistics are startling and the reality should upset us. Elder abuse is inflicted upon those who have built our society and the mothers who raised us.

Australian Department of Health and Ageing has released a new report which shows an alarming rise in physical assaults on the elderly in nursing homes: physical assaults increased by more than 50% and sexual assaults by 36%.

Physical and sexual assaults on our elderly in nursing homes is a problem in the United States as well. Earlier this month the Chicago Tribune reported on the widespread problem within the state of Illinois.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has dated statistics on elderly abuse -- “A study conducted in 1996 found that more than 500,000 persons age 60 years and older were the victims of abuse or neglect during a one-year period.”

As baby boomers age, the sheer number of elder persons makes the risk of elderly abuse a national problem.

Elder abuse is defined as any knowing, intentional, or negligent act by a caregiver or any other person that causes harm or a serious risk of harm to a vulnerable adult. Laws and definitions of terms vary considerably from one state to another, but broadly defined, abuse may be:

1. Physical Abuse - inflicting physical pain or injury on a senior, e.g. slapping, bruising, or restraining by physical or chemical means.
2. Sexual Abuse - non-consensual sexual contact of any kind.
3. Neglect - the failure by those responsible to provide food, shelter, health care, or protection for a vulnerable elder.
4. Exploitation - the illegal taking, misuse, or concealment of funds, property, or assets of a senior for someone else's benefit.
5. Emotional Abuse - inflicting mental pain, anguish, or distress on an elder person through verbal or nonverbal acts, e.g. humiliating, intimidating, or threatening.
6. Abandonment - desertion of a vulnerable elder by anyone who has assumed the responsibility for care or custody of that person.
7. Self-neglect
– characterized as the failure of a person to perform essential, self-care tasks and that such failure threatens his/her own health or safety.

Often the elderly will suffer in silence, especially if the caregiver is the abuser. Some tell-tale signs that there could be a problem are:

1. Bruises, pressure marks, broken bones, abrasions, and burns may be an indication of physical abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Be especially wary if the bruises are around the breast or genital areas, as these may indicate sexual abuse.
2. Unexplained withdrawal from normal activities, a sudden change in alertness, and unusual depression may be indicators of emotional abuse.
3. Bedsores, unattended medical needs, poor hygiene, and unusual weight loss are indicators of possible neglect.
4. Strained or tense relationships, frequent arguments between the caregiver and elderly person are also signs.
5. If you suspect abuse, report it. If the danger is immediate, call 911 or the police.

To report elder abuse, contact the Adult Protective Services (APS) agency in the state where the elder resides. You can find the APS reporting number for each state by:

Visiting the “Hotline” section of the National Center on Elder Abuse website

Sources
theAge.com.au
Administration on Aging (AOA)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Link to the article:
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1024/28/36197/elder-abuse-and-out-nursing-homes-growing-problem.html

To kill or not to kill?

George Webster, a clinical ethicist, Health Care Ethics Service, at St. Boniface General Hospital and CIHR member, wrote an article that was published in the Winnipeg Free Press on March 22, 2010.

Webster begins his article by making reference to the program - The Suicide Tourist that was recently aired on PBS. He then comments on Bill C-384, the bill that would legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.

Webster continues by explaining why some people support the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide and then he explains why others oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Webster looks at the issue in a fair and balanced manner. He is concerned about what is best for the country, for physicians and for patient care. Webster makes this conclusion:

What to do? I believe we can "care well" for the dying and terminally ill in our society without intentionally bringing about their deaths or assisting in their suicides. Often, those who gravitate toward euthanasia or assisted suicide do so because they fear they will lose control of decisions at the end of their lives. They may have witnessed family members dying with little control over decisions or they may have witnessed loved ones die in great pain.

Via their words and actions, health-care professionals and health-care organizations must assure patients and families they will be involved in a meaningful way with decisions about their care. Patients must be assured they will not be abandoned, left to die in isolation and/or excluded from important choices at the end of life.

In our time, no one need die in this way. Fear of loss of control and fear of a painful, protracted dying process are basic issues for all in this debate. However, all too often in the discussion of assisted suicide the public is presented with two scenarios -- a death characterized by loss of control and unrelieved pain and suffering or a peaceful, calm death. This is, quite simply, a crude and simplistic caricature.

Assisting the suicide of those in our community who are dying and/or others who may be struggling with mental anguish eliminates tragedy and suffering by eliminating the sufferer. Rather than being an expression of mercy or respect, communal endorsement of euthanasia and assisted suicide is the ultimate abandonment of the person.

Palliative care is a viable alternative to euthanasia and assisted suicide. The philosophy of palliative care encourages each patient to live to the fullest as they confront their own unique dying. Palliative care demonstrates death is a communal event and not simply a private matter. Those working in palliative care bring specialized skills to respond to pain, psychological distress and the spiritual needs of patients and their families.

If we are to truly honour and respect those among us who are dying, or those whose hold on life is weakened by disease or suffering, then we must keep company with these people and respond in concrete ways that communicate faithfulness and attentiveness.

Link to the article at: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/to-kill-or-not-to-kill-88801087.html

Complications with assisted suicide in Oregon and Washington states

An article that is written by Harris Meyer for crosscut.com examines the complications in the first year assisted suicide report in Washington State and the report from Oregon.

The article states:

Reports show some patients had troubles with end-of-life procedures, but complications were rare. Advocates say they'll work to better publicize proper methods.

There may need to be some tinkering with the machinery of death.

It is important about that people learn that there may be more complications than reported in Oregon and Washington states but due to the control that is exerted by Compassion & Choices and the fact that rarely is the physician, who prescribed the lethal dose, present at the assisted suicide death.

After the death occurs the physician who prescribed the lethal dose is then required to submit the report, but how would the physician know that complications occured when the physician is rarely present at the time of death.

Compassion & Choices suggested that with more information the complication rate will drop. The article stated:

“We’re concerned because we want this to work well and properly,” said Dr. Tom Preston, a retired Seattle cardiologist who serves as Compassion’s medical director in Washington. “The more we can get information out there on doing it correctly, particularly to doctors, the better it works out.”

Eileen Geller, the leader of True Compassionate Advocates, was quoted in the article as stating:

“This is marketed by Compassion and Dr. Preston as a peaceful means of dying,” said Eileen Geller, a Seattle hospice nurse who heads True Compassion Advocates, which tries to steer people away from assisted suicide. “But this type of death is cruel and unusual.”

The article described the complications in this manner:

One terminally ill Washington patient who took the lethal prescription vomited up part of it because he had swilled six cans of Pepsi, his favorite drink, in the hour before taking the drug, Preston said. He got that information from the patient’s physician, who wasn’t there but heard it from people who were present. The patient woke up and fell back asleep several times before finally dying 28 hours later — the longest time to death reported among the 36 Washingtonians who died in 2009 after ingesting the drug.

The other Washington case with complications was a terminally ill woman who swallowed the drug too slowly because she kept stopping to say goodbye to the people around her, Preston said. She fell asleep after drinking less than half the full cocktail, then awakened before later dying. The lethal drug used in assisted dying in Washington and Oregon is either oral secobarbital or pentobarbital, mixed with a sweet-tasting liquid or custard.

Compassion & Choices try to control the implementation of the assisted suicide law by facilitating most of the deaths and ensuring that their volunteers are present at the time of death to ensure that death occurs. The article stated:

Compassion had a volunteer present in 80 percent of the Washington cases where patients ingested the lethal drug last year, and there were no reported complications in those cases, Preston said.

The author of the article let Compassion & Choices promote its services:

“When we have a trained volunteer present, the average time to sleep is five minutes and the average time to dying is 25 minutes,” he said. “Like any medical procedure, there’s a right way to do it. Even when patients and their families have been adequately instructed, it can misfire if there isn’t someone knowledgable there watching.”

In Oregon, there was one reported regurgitation out of the 59 deaths under the law in 2009; there have been 20 out of 460 cases since that state’s pioneering Death with Dignity law took effect in 1998. Over that entire period, just one patient was reported to have awakened after taking the drug, about four years ago.

According to George Eighmey, Compassion’s executive director in Oregon, doctors later concluded that patient woke up because he had taken a laxative to mask the bitter taste of the lethal drug, which prevented his body from absorbing the drug quickly enough. When he awoke after being asleep for 65 hours, there were no signs of pain, and he ended up dying of his underlying disease two weeks later.
In Oregon George Eighmey was willing to talk about two cases. I ask George, what about the other, unreported cases? Eighmey stated:

Oregon reported one Death with Dignity patient last year who took a record 104 hours to die. “The doctors we talked to said it’s likely she just had a very strong heart,” Eighmey said.

There’s no indication that people who have taken longer to die have suffered, Eighmey said; they look relaxed and sleep soundly. In one case last year, however, family members noticed the patient “grimacing or twitching,” he acknowledged. “They were concerned afterward, but the person still died without awakening.”

Compassion & Choices will boast about the way they control the law but the Oregon government should be concerned that the only people who know how the law actually works is Compassion & Choices the article stated:

Eighmey boasts that last year Compassion had volunteers present during 57 of the 59 assisted-dying cases in Oregon, up from around 80 percent over the previous years. “More and more hospices and medical providers are aware of our organization and appreciate our facilitating that process,” he said.

The other fact is that there are no penalties when the mandatory physician reporting forms are not submitted. The fact that there are a few irregularities with the reporting forms means that Compassion & Choices will simply be more careful next year to cover up the lack of reporting. The article states:

In Washington, there is concern that mandatory physician reporting forms on two of the 63 Washington patients who received lethal medication prescriptions from their doctors weren’t filed in time for the 2009 annual report. In addition, there were four missing after-death forms from physicians — making it impossible to know whether four of the 47 patients who received the prescription and subsequently died expired from ingesting the lethal drug or from other causes.

“The law doesn’t provide specific enforcement authority but we are calling doctors to ask them if they forgot to send the forms,” said Donn Moyer, a spokesman for the Washington Department of Health.

Eileen Geller commented on the reporting:

“We don’t know who died from the medication, and there’s no penalty for not reporting,” she said.

She argues that elderly and disabled people are being pressured by relatives to choose assisted suicide for financial reasons, and that providers are being told they can’t report this as elder abuse due to the Death with Dignity law. She said she knows of one case last year where a woman suffering from moderate diabetes wanted to stop taking her insulin to qualify for Death with Dignity; when a hospice nurse told her she didn’t qualify under the requirement that patients be terminally ill with six months to live, a Compassion & Choices volunteer called and berated the nurse.

Preston didn't agree with Geller's assertion:

Preston called Geller’s charge against Compassion a “baseless and unsubstantiated claim,” saying, “we would never consider working with such a patient except to advise her that she didn’t qualify under the law.”

The article then glossed over the similarities and differences between the Washington and Oregon experience with assisted suicide.

Overall, Washington’s experience in the first year of its law was quite comparable to Oregon’s, according to the state reports. The large majority of patients who received the lethal prescriptions had terminal cancer, were white, had some college education, were covered by health insurance, and were concerned about loss of autonomy, loss of dignity, and inability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable.

One difference was that 72 percent of the Washington patients were enrolled in hospice care, compared with 92 percent in Oregon. Both supporters and opponents of the Death with Dignity law urge terminally ill patients to take advantage of hospice to receive palliative care and pain relief, which may dissuade them from seeking assisted suicide. Experts say awareness and use of hospice and palliative care has increased since Oregon’s Death with Dignity law took effect.

Critics have said not enough patients undergo psychological evaluations to determine whether they are competent to use the Death with Dignity law. Last year, according to the state reports, doctors ordered evaluations for three Washington patients who later received lethal prescriptions; in Oregon there were none. Preston and Eighmey noted, however, that other patients — three in Washington and five in Oregon — received evaluations and never got the lethal prescriptions. That wasn’t reported to the states, which only require reporting of cases where patients received the drug.

In one such case, Preston was skeptical about the patient’s competence but the attending doctor initially was reluctant to order a psychological evaluation because it would take too much time. He ended up ordering the test. “The doctor said it turned out to be very helpful,” Preston said. “The patient was too far out of it.”

Link to the article: http://crosscut.com/2010/03/23/health-medicine/19689/

‘Pulling the plug’ isn’t euthanasia

The Ottawa Citizen printed an excellent article by Margaret Somerville on Friday entitled: Pulling the plug isn't euthanasia.

I have been fighting a phantom ever since the Quebec College of Physicians decided that Canada needs to legalize euthanasia and then compared euthanasia to ending life-sustaining medical treatment.

The law clearly allows physicians to withdraw or withhold medical treatment that is futile, burdensome, inappropriate, etc. This is not euthanasia unless it is necessary care that is withheld or withdrawn against the consent of the person.

The important point in this article is that there is a difference between killing and letting die. The other natural difference between killing and letting die is that when you let someone die, sometimes (not often) they don't die and often they don't die immediately. When you give someone a lethal dose by euthanasia, that person will die from the lethal dose and usually within a short period of time.

Somerville wrote:
Recently, I saw an illustration that accompanied an article about euthanasia. It showed the silhouette of a patient lying on a bed. There was an electrical outlet on the wall behind the bed and an unplugged connecting cord hanging down over the side of the bed.

Except in very rare circumstances — for instance, if the treatment were withdrawn without the necessary consent or against the patient’s wishes — withdrawal of life-support treatment is not euthanasia. Yet many people, including the artist who penned this illustration and many health-care professionals, mistakenly believe that it is.

In my experience, they are confused with respect to the ethical and legal differences between withdrawal of treatment that results in death and euthanasia, and why the former can be ethically and legally acceptable, provided certain conditions are fulfilled, and the latter cannot be. This is a central and important distinction in the euthanasia debate, which needs to be understood.

Failure to understand it leads, among other problems, to physicians responding affirmatively to surveys that ask them whether they or their colleagues have carried out euthanasia, when in fact they have not, and members of the public saying they agree with euthanasia, because they agree with people’s rights to refuse medical treatment.

First, the primary intention is different in the two cases: In withdrawing life-support treatment the primary intention is to respect the patient’s right to refuse treatment; in euthanasia it is to kill the patient. The former intention is ethically and legally acceptable; the latter is not.

Patients have a right to refuse treatment, even if that means they will die. They have a right not to be touched, including through medical treatment, without their consent — a right to inviolability. This right protects a person’s physical integrity and can also function to protect physical and mental privacy. The right to inviolability is one aspect of every competent adult’s right to autonomy and self-determination.

Pro-euthanasia advocates use recognition of this right to refuse treatment even when it results in death to argue that, likewise, patients should be allowed to exercise their right to autonomy and self-determination to choose death through lethal injection. They say that there is no morally or ethically significant difference between these situations, and there ought to be no legal difference.

They found their argument by wrongly characterizing the right to refuse treatment as a “right to die,” and then generalize that right to include dying through euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. But the right to refuse treatment is not a “right to die” and does not establish any such right, although death results from respecting the patient’s right to inviolability. The right to refuse treatment can be validly characterized as a “right to be allowed to die,” but this is quite different from a right to be killed that euthanasia would establish.

Moreover, a “right to be allowed to die by refusing treatment,” is a “negative content” right — a right against one’s integrity being breached without one’s consent. In contrast, a “right to die” through access to euthanasia would be a “positive content” right — that is, a right to something. In general, the law is very much more reluctant to recognize positive content rights, than negative content ones.

This pro-euthanasia line of argument is yet one more example of promoting euthanasia through deliberate confusion between interventions, such as valid refusals of treatment, that are not euthanasia and those that are.

This brings us to the issue of legal causation, which also differentiates refusals-of-treatment-that-result-in-death from euthanasia. In the former, the person dies from their underlying disease — a natural death. The withdrawal of treatment is the occasion on which death occurs, but not its cause. If the person had no fatal illness, they would not die. We can see that when patients who refuse treatment and are expected to die, do not die. In contrast, in euthanasia death is certain and the cause of death is the lethal injection. Without that, the person would not die at that time from that cause.

The fact that the patient dies both in refusing treatment and in euthanasia is one of the sources of the confusion between the two. If we focus just on the fact that in both cases the outcome is death, we miss the real point of distinction between death resulting from refusing treatment and from euthanasia.

The issue in the euthanasia debate is not if we die — we all eventually die. The issue is how we die and whether some means of dying, such as euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, should remain legally prohibited. In order to maintain that they should, we need to be able to show how currently accepted practices, such as respect for patients’ refusals of treatment, are not euthanasia and differ from it and assisted suicide.

Margaret Somerville is director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, and author of The Ethical Imagination: Journeys of the Human Spirit.

Link to the article at: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Pulling+plug+euthanasia/2704966/story.html

Minnesota nurse to be prosecuted for his role in counselling suicide deaths.

An article in yesterday's Daily Mail newspaper in the UK confirms that William Melchert-Dinkel, the Minnesota nurse who admitted to being an internet suicide predator, will be charged with encouraging others to commit suicide.

Melchert-Dinkel has admitted to being involved with the suicide death of Nadia Kajouji, the 18 year-old first-year student at Carlton University in Ottawa in March 2008. Kajouji died by drowning after establishing a suicide pact with Melchert-Dinkel who claimed to be a female nurse from Minnesota.

You will notice by the comment from Deborah Chevalier (below the blog entry) that the article had some false comments. Melchert-Dinkel has not been charged yet, even though they expect that he will.

The article stated that:

Melchert-Dinkel, a married father of two, allegedly spent years posing as a young woman who may have contacted more than 100 desperate people across the world.

‘Most important is the placement of the noose on the neck,’ he allegedly wrote in one web chat. He then went on to detail where to place the knot ‘for instant unconsciousness and death.’

He has allegedly admitted to U.S police that he was involved in at least four deaths, including that of an 18-year-old Canadian student Nadia Kajouji.

Melchert-Dinkel also admitted to establishing a suicide pact with Mark Drybrough an IT technician from Coventry in the UK to commit suicide in June 2005. The article stated:

Mr Drybrough’s mother Elaine said that she believed that Melchert-Dinkel appointed himself as her son’s ‘executioner’.

Mark Drybrough killed himself at his home in Coventry in June 2005
‘Mark had had a nervous breakdown and he was depressed and incredibly susceptible,’ she said.

‘This person was there whispering in his ear every time he logged on. In the last email, this person claimed to be a nurse, saying he had medical training, and proposed a suicide pact.’

Mrs Dryborough eventually tracked down Mr Melchert-Dinkel with the help of a Wiltshire youth worker, Celia Blay, who discovered that dozens of people had received similar emails to Mark’s.

Celia Blay worked hard on her own to uncover Melchert-Dinkel's activities:

Mrs Blay had been enraged when a 13-year-old friend of hers had told her that she had made a suicide pact with a female nurse called Li Dao

Mrs Blay contacted members of internet groups used by Li Dao and discovered that she used the pseudonyms Falcon Girl and Cami D.

Li Dao would persuade people to enter pacts in which they would hang themselves in front of internet webcams and watch each other die.

But at the crucial moment there was always a problem with Li Dao’s webcam.

Mrs Blay said: ‘We found out everything about him on Google, including where he lived in Minnesota.’

She added: ‘He befriended them using a female identity, was very loving and sympathetic, but never suggested an alternative to death, even when they were only teenagers.

‘He’d tell them that he intended to kill himself too, and said they should set up a web camera and he would do the same thing so they could watch each other die over the internet.’

‘It took months and months to collect the evidence but when I went to the police [close to her home, which was then at Maidenhead, Berkshire] they just said if it bothers you, look the other way,’ she said.

At this point Melchert-Dinkel has only been disciplined by the Minnesota nurses association who revoked his right to be a nurse. The article stated:

The Minnesota Board of Nursing, which revoked Melchert-Dinkel's licence in June last year, said he encouraged numerous people to commit suicide and told at least one person his job as a nurse made him an expert on the most effective way to do it.

His medical notes record that he told nurses that he was addicted to suicide chat rooms and had ‘posed as a 28 yo female formed suicide pacts with some that he had no attention [sic] of following thru . . . 4 yrs suicide fetish offered medical advice for assisted suicide x2’.

Harold Albrecht MP, (Kitchener-Conestoga) unanimously steered Motion 388 through Canada's parliament to urge the Canadian government to take action in the death of Nadia Kajouji and to protect Canadians from internet suicide predators.

Link to the article at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259379/The-suicide-voyeur-nurse-encouraged-people-kill-online.html#ixzz0ioCWmlI0

Doctor Death continues to promote veterinarian drugs for suicide

Philip Nitschke, Australia's Dr Death, continues to promote the purchase of veterinarian euthanasia drugs for his supporters to use for suicide.

Philip Nitschke

An article published today in the Australian paper, Perth Now, explains that a source of Nembutal, a drug used in the euthanasia of animals, has been discovered in Thailand.

Nitschke has been irresponsible with his promotion of the use of Nembutal and this has resulted in large numbers of his supporters, as well as young healthy or depressed people also obtaining Nembutal to kill themselves.

A recent report from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine researched 51 people who died from Nembutal in Australia. The report found that young people and depressed people were more likely to die by Nembutal than terminally ill people in Australia.

The report stated that of the 51 people who were known to have died from Nembutal, 6 people were in their 20's, 8 people were in their 30's, 5 people were in their 40's, 14 people were in their 50's, 3 people in their 60's, 10 in their 70's, and 5 people were over the age of 80.

Further to that, the report found that of the 38 known deaths that were investigated by a coroner, only 11 had a significant physical illness or chronic pain with the remaining 27 cases showing no signs of physical problems.

The report suggested that the 27 otherwise healthy people who died from Nembutal use were most likely depressed or mentall ill.

Link to my previous blog comment on this study: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/02/hoarding-death-drugs.html

With the continued promotion of Nembutal, Nitschke is proving that he doesn't care about the colateral damage that is caused by his promotion of Nembutal. People are travelling around the world obtaining Nembutal from veterinary clinics and putting their lives and the lives of others at risk.

Nitschke's irresponsibly promoting Nembutal for his own politcal gain without caring that vulnerable people are dying at the same time.

Link to the article in Perth Now: http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/cheap-flight-to-thailand-for-euthanasia-drugs/story-e6frg12c-1225843186159

Bill C-384 received its first-hour of debate on March 16th (again)

The first-hour of debate (again) on Bill C-384, the bill that is sponsored by Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada took place, yesterday on March 16, 2010.

Bill C-384 was introduced at first-reading on May 13, 2009. It had its first-hour of debate on October 2, 2009 and it was scheduled for its second-hour of debate for November 16, 2009. Lalonde then traded-backwards in the order of precedence three times to delay the second-hour of debate and vote on Bill C-384. Then Prime-Minister Harper prorogued parliament. Since C-384 had not been voted-on at second reading, therefore prorogation returned C-384 to requiring a first and second-hour of debate before it could be voted-on at Second Reading.

Lalonde’s strategy: Create confusion concerning Bill C-384, euthanasia and assisted suicide and pressure Members of Parliament (MP) to pass the bill at second reading and amendment it in committee.

Lalonde began her speech in parliament by annunciating her strategy to pressure MP’s to support Bill C-384 at second-reading and to amend it in committee. Lalonde stated:

“I think that studying my bill in committee and passing it after consideration and amendments would at last rid us of the criminal nature of physician-assisted dying by euthanasia or assisted suicide.”

Bill C-384 is fatally flawed. There is nothing redeeming or worth amending in the bill.

*Bill C-384 legalizes lethal injection for people who suffer chronic physical and mental pain even when the condition is treatable.

*Bill C-384 is not limited to competent people. It legalizes lethal injection for people who “appear to be lucid”. You are not required to be lucid only to appear to be lucid.

Lalonde then begins her second strategy which is to create confusion about what euthanasia and assisted suicide is and what Bill C-384 does. Lalonde states:

“In a context where any act aimed at shortening life is considered murder punishable by criminal sanctions, it is rather difficult to have an open and frank discussion on all the care that would be appropriate at the end of life.”

“The Canadian legal framework, the Criminal Code, stipulates that any action to end another person’s life constitutes murder and is therefore subject to criminal sanctions.”

Lalonde’s comments are false and misleading.

Euthanasia is when a person (usually a physician) directly and intentionally causes the death of another person, based on suffering. Euthanasia is usually done by lethal injection.

Assisted Suicide is when a person aids, abets or counsels a person to commit suicide. Assisted suicide is usually done by writing a prescription for a lethal dose.

Lalonde's statements relate to the false comments by the Quebec College of Physicians who argue that euthanasia needs to be legalized to protect doctors who use sedation techniques and large doses of morphine, acts that they claim are the same as euthanasia.

The proper use of morphine and other analgesics is not euthanasia. The proper use of analgesics will relieve a person of pain and if the rare and unintended consequence is the death of the person, then it is clearly not euthanasia but rather the reality that death is a natural end for the human person. The abuse of the use of analgesics may be euthanasia and should never be confused with the effective and proper use of morphine.

The proper use of sedation techniques are not euthanasia, but rather a good form of palliative care. When a person is properly sedated to relieve them of pain, this is not euthanasia, but the abuse of the use of sedation techniques may be euthanasia.

I am concerned that false and misleading comments concerning the proper use of sedation and analgesics to effectively control pain may lead some physicians to hesitate from using large doses of analgesics or hesitate from sedating a person who is experiencing painful symptoms. This would be a tragic.

Lalonde also asked the question: “What will the parliament of Canada do?” if the Quebec government commission that is seeking information on euthanasia and assisted suicide, introduces a motion in the Quebec legislature to legalize euthanasia?

Lalonde promotes the myth that her bill is strict and limited. She stated:

“My bill has a specific objective. It deals only with people capable of making decisions for themselves who are living in conditions of suffering that cannot be alleviated.“

“My bill is specific and limited”

Bill C-384 is wide open and uncontrollable.

It allows euthanasia (lethal injection) and assisted suicide (lethal prescription) for people who are experiencing physical or mental pain or terminally ill, who have accepted or rejected effective treatments, and who appear to be lucid.

Bill C-384 is not limited to terminally ill people. It allows euthanasia for someone who is experiencing chronic physical or mental pain, who have rejected effective treatment, even if that effective treatment was for chronic depression, and who appear to be lucid.

Bill C-384 would allow someone who lives with treatable chronic depression to be killed by lethal injection.

This is a bill that specifically targets people with disabilities who live with chronic conditions.

C-384 is a recipe for elder abuse. A person only needs to appear to be lucid and the bill does not require a witness at the time of death to ensure that the person who died, actually consented.

Lalonde is creating confusion about what euthanasia and assisted suicide is and what Bill C-384 does. She is pressuring MP’s to vote for Bill C-384 at second reading, even if they don’t actually support the bill, to allow the bill to be debated and amended in the justice committee.

Lalonde is constantly repeating a lie with the hope that the lie becomes accepted as a fact.

Bill C-384 needs to be defeated at second reading. Tell your MP to vote against Bill C-384.

Vancouver Sun and euthanasia lobby activist dissing disability activists

Stephen Drake from Not Dead Yet is not taking the crap from the euthanasia lobby, who are attempting to discount the opposition by people with disabilities to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

All I have to say is go get-em Stephen:

Read his comments:
Ann Neumann, writing on the Otherspoon blog, has stated in the past that she's inclined to shy away from direct criticism of disability rights groups like NDY in the "right to die" debate, seeing it as "a trap."

Neumann found a way around the "trap" last week by quoting someone else's work. Specifically, she quoted a "hit and miss" attempt at analysis of the impact of the disability rights movement in Canada published in the Vancouver Sun.

Here's the relevant portion of the article in regard to assisted suicide and euthanasia, which Neumann also shares on her blog:

The battle for disabled rights has had other unpredicted twists and turns.

One of them is over the so-called "right to die." As advocates for the disabled have continued battling for recognition, they have clashed with people who want laws in Canada and the U.S. permitting assisted suicide for those with severe disabilities and terminal conditions.

Even though polls show the majority of Canadians support regulated euthanasia, disability rights activists have strongly lobbied politicians to make sure no one, regardless of the severity of their disability, should be able to choose an assisted suicide.

In this increasingly bitter debate, disabled activists claim legalizing assisted suicide would be an ethical "slippery slope" that would lead to all disabled people, no matter the degree of their impairment, being devalued as human beings.

In turn, advocates for assisted suicide maintain the arguments of disabled-rights activists are a misplaced over-reaction to their proposals.

American readers should take careful note of the specific wording. The debate in Canada is not limited to advocacy of assisted suicide or euthanasia for the "terminally ill" alone. As I'll get to in a bit, it's not even limited to those who ask to die.

All the more curious that she'd highlight this, since one of her criticisms in her previous post responding (sort of) to Not Dead Yet, contained this:

As to the provision of rights to one group infringing on the rights of another, that's just bad thinking too. Giving a mentally-sound, terminal patient with less than six the right to a lethal prescription that they may or may not choose to take when death approaches has nothing to do with the disabled community. Again, I sympathize with the fear and vulnerability the disabled community feels toward the medical industry, the state, and society. But conflating two separate issues is just bad advocacy. With a little (understandable) paranoia thrown in.

Paranoia? Certainly not in Canada.

See, the reporter at the Vancouver Sun didn't do his homework. The one single case that galvanized the disability community in Canada in regard to this issue was the murder of a disabled 12-year-old girl by her father, who claimed it was a "mercy killing" after failing to pass her death off as a natural one. Robert Latimer, who gassed his daughter Tracy in the cab of his truck, had many defenders - including members of the "right to die" movement in Canada.

Ruth von Fuchs, current president of the Right to Die Society of Canada, had some pretty unambiguous quotes during the trial of Robert Latimer:

Proponents of euthanasia say that, until proper legal and social supports are in place, many people, like Latimer, have to take the law into their own hands. "This law is being written unofficially in emergency rooms and intensive care wards every night," says Ruth von Fuchs, a member of the Right to Die Society in Toronto. Von Fuchs views Tracy's death as part of a "continuum" that begins with brain-damaged infants, some so severely handicapped that doctors quietly remove life support within hours of birth. It is unfortunate, she adds, that because mercy killing has been "criminalized," Latimer felt he had to act alone, without the help of a social worker or medical expert. Von Fuchs, and other members of the euthanasia movement, is calling for a change in attitude to mercy killing. "In our society, we forbid people to give up," she argues. "We say, 'Never say die,' but sometimes you have to stand back and realize that really is a cliché. We cannot fix everyone every time forever."

You want a clearer statement from a leader in the Canadian "right to die" movement? Here is an excerpt from a 1997 NY Times article quoting the late Marilyn Seguin, then the executive director of of the Canadian group Dying with Dignity:

Marilynne Seguin, executive director of Dying With Dignity, a Toronto-based group promoting freedom of choice for physician-assisted deaths, said that the Latimers had already lived under a sentence during the 12 years that Tracy was alive and that to add the 10-year punishment "is quite unconscionable." (emphasis added.)

Going back to the original article, opposition of disability rights activists - and mistrust of the motives of euthanasia advocates - might seem less like an "overreaction" and more an appropriate reaction with more information.

The Vancouver Sun reporter failed to supply a full context for the nature of the real debate here - through laziness, sloppiness or reasons unknown. Whether Neumann found this appealing due to true ignorance or a simple wish to use misinformation is anyone's guess. But even with the limited information available in the article, she certainly can't accuse disability activists of conflating "terminal illness" with "disability." Disability is openly on the agenda of the euthanasia proponents in Canada.

It is here in the US as well. The larger organizations just favor an incrementalist approach and are a little embarrassed by the recently publicized more radical activities of the Final Exit Network. --Stephen Drake

Link to the comments on the Not Dead Yet blog:
http://notdeadyetnewscommentary.blogspot.com/2010/03/ann-neumann-and-vancouver-sun-dissing.html