Remembering the victims of Nazi eugenics and euthanasia

The following article was written by Marc von Lupke-Schwarz and published in Deutsche Welle on July 14, 2013 under the title: Remembering the victims of Nazi eugenics.

By Marc von Lupke-Schwarz - July 14, 2013

On July 14, 1933, the National Socialists introduced the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people were forcibly sterilized. Others were murdered.

By the summer of 1933, the Nazis had Germany firmly in their grip. With this newfound power, the far-right party decided to mould German society in the image of its own making.

A decisive step towards achieving that aim was the introduction of the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring, or Sterilization Law, that passed in the Reichstag on July 14, 1933. The law stated that people suffering from particular illnesses could be forcibly sterilized in order to prevent the spread of hereditary diseases.

Followers of the eugenics movement believed that the German population could be genetically "improved" and welcomed the law. For the victims of forced sterilization, this violent physical intrusion meant a life without the possibility of having children. Many were heavily traumatized and suffered their entire lives.

The National Socialists hoped to realize the dream of "master race" in which "diseased" and "weak" people had no place.

The triumph of eugenics

The new law listed the types of "illness" that warranted the sterilization of carriers. This list included congenital mental deficiency, schizophrenia, epilepsy, hereditary deafness and blindness, as well as people with "any severe hereditary deformity" and alcoholics.

"One can't say that it was the 'evil' Nazis alone," said Christiane Rothmaler, a doctor and historian who has spent many years researching the history of forced sterilization. She knows that the issue of eugenics was already being discussed in 19th century.

"Back then, eugenics was a very serious field of biology, it wasn't deranged Nazis. It was, above all, doctors who welcomed the law through which they wanted to realize this old genetic dream," the dream of a society cleansed of "inferior elements."

Social and biological experiment

Following the introduction of the law, doctors sterilized thousands of supposedly ill people. The most common justification for the procedure was known as "congenital mental illness," which was interpreted in a social sense to include people who were considered "outsiders" of theVolksgemeinschaft, or people's community.

People seen as antisocial, criminals, prostitutes or even simply people who didn't conform to social norms and were therefore considered "problematic" were sterilized.

"They were often reliant on social welfare. Because of that, the authorities knew a lot about these people from their files," said Rothmaler.

The scientists of the period did not possess an in-depth knowledge of the hereditary transmission of diseases. "A theoretical construct was developed as to how certain traits, for example hair color, were inherited. Later, people believed that certain dispositions could also be identified," said Rothmaler.

The brutality of bureaucracy

Local authorities established Hereditary Health Courts across Germany to make decisions regarding forced sterilizations. The head of jury was a lawyer, flanked by two doctors. Medical reports were used to support the verdict that it was necessary to sterilize any given individual.

"There was a flood of lawsuits, so much so that the courts could barely process them all. In the beginning people still made a lot of effort, but the longer and longer it began to take - especially after everything was focused on the war - the more the legal process became a complete farce," said Rothmaler.

When forced sterilization was proposed, the victim had only three options: The first was to simply allow the procedure to go ahead. The second was to launch a legal challenge through the courts. The third was to disappear off the map.

Legal challenges were rarely ever successful and people on the run were hunted down by the police. For the majority there was simply no escape.

Forced sterilization was carried out in hospitals throughout Germany, and minors were not exempt. Children from the age of 14 could be sterilized and, in exceptional cases, children under the age of 14 were also subjected to the procedure.

Research estimates that up to 400,000 people in the area the Nazis called the Greater German Reich were sterilized in the period up to 1945. Around 6,000 people are estimated to have died of complications resulting from the procedure.

Euthanasia Bus

'Mercy death'

"Patients who, on the basis of human judgment, are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death [Gnadentod] after a discerning diagnosis," wrote Hitler in a letter dated September 1, 1939 - the first day of World War II.

With that, the National Socialist regime also began to murder those they deemed to be "inferior" beings. Euthanasia now meant the killing of disabled and psychologically ill people.

"Victims of euthanasia were labeled as 'dead weight,' for whom, supposedly, nothing could be done. What we can't cure, we eliminate, is what the doctors thought," said Rothmaler.

Medics and carers were also guilty of selecting and murdering defenseless victims.

Euthanasia Victims

Until August 1941, around 70,000 people were murdered in gas chambers or by lethal injection during "Campaign T4," the program named after the Central Euthanasia Organization located at Tiergartenstrasse 4 in Berlin.

Protests by the Catholic Church eventually brought an end to the program but children and adults continued to be victims of euthanasia in procedures that weren't so openly publicized and carried out in secret.

Forced sterilization and euthanasia

Did the Sterilization Law lay the foundation for the murder of people with disabilities?

"One can't assume that euthanasia was a radical step from forced sterilization," explained Rothmaler. "But the overriding idea to relieve society of so-called 'dead weight' was a feature of both measures."

Germany was not the only country to forcibly sterilize its citizens. Authorities in Sweden and the US also employed the measures - around 60,000 were forcibly sterilized in the US in the last century alone. But the planned murder of diseased and disabled people occurred only in Germany.

For decades after 1945, the victims of the law received no recognition or compensation. Only in 1988 did the German government first acknowledge that the forced sterilization of hundreds of thousands of people under National Socialism had been unjust.

Still a way to go

"It's very important not to forget that such a crime was committed in our history. And above all, we shouldn't forget how little time has passed since then," said Sascha Decker of Aktion Mensch, an organization that has been helping people with disabilities for nearly 50 years.

"People with disabilities are still regularly defined by their supposed deficits. We want to change that through contact," he said.

In light of the enormous progress in the field of genetics, doctors now know far more about the diseases hidden in our genes. Human genetic advice centers and prenatal diagnostics can explain many health risks to expectant parents.

"The desire to be perfect and healthy is anchored in people's minds through public discourse. Because of that, many expectant parents have a conflicted conscience," said Rothmaler.

Despite the progress made in integrating disabled people into society, Decker still believes there are a few hurdles left. "In some areas we're still only at the beginning. The goal is to see all people as equals."

Links to previous articles concerning eugenics.

- Memorial to the victims of euthanasia being built in Germany.

- Holocaust Memorial Day - Let's not forget the key role doctors played.

- Deadly steps to the final solution - Eugenics and Euthanasia.

- Trisomy 18 is not a death sentence. The story of Lilliana Dennis.

Physician-assisted Suicide Was More Important to Vermont Legislators Than the Wrongful and Tragic Loss of Innocent Human Life

Bob Orleck, sent the following article in italics below, to True Dignity Vermont. Orleck was in the Senate and House for every stage of the assisted suicide debate in Vermont and he knows exactly what happened.  As a pharmacist with detailed knowledge of how the suicide drugs work, Bob is appalled that this law was passed.

Pharmacist and Legislative Observer: Physician-assisted Suicide Was More Important to Vermont Legislators Than the Wrongful and Tragic Loss of Innocent Human Life.

By Bob Orleck, Pharmacist

A very accurate analysis of what Act 39 (physician assisted suicide) will mean in real life practice to real hurting people  was written by Edward J. Mahoney, Vermont Alliance for Ethical Health Care, and published in the 5 July edition of the Burlington Free Press. 

Bob Orleck

While Mr. Mahoney has pointed to many legislative errors, there will be more discovered as application of this law meets the multitude of fact situations and abuses that will present. What was clear from the beginning, even with consideration of the Oregon style bill before it morphed into what we got, was that Vermont’s legislature for political reasons refused to deliberate on the many dangerous facets of this legislation. They focused solely on appealing to special interests both in and out of our State of Vermont and ignored the good of the people. Their work is an embarrassment and needs to be fixed. To have a special session though, with the same cast of characters who walk in lock step, will probably prove fruitless. They were blind to the truth then and they will most likely chose to stay in the dark in the future. A special session though, driven by a realization that serious errors were made, might lead to a more sufficient vetting of the issues and a change in course for our lawmakers, one that realizes they went down the wrong path of being controlled by ignorance, politics and emotion instead of by sound medical  judgment, scientific facts and the best interests of Vermonters.

Our Vermont legislators in their last minute rush to salvage what appeared to be certain rejection of the Oregon styled Physician Assisted Suicide bill, made a deal with an ego driven lawmaker to get some manner of death legislation. In so doing they threw caution to the wind, carelessly drafted language, then failed to do critical examination of their work and instead cranked up the emotion level and crammed it though with pressure from Governor Shumlin and by the recognized hard work of Speaker Shap Smith, who maneuvered and controlled the House debate to gain passage of the bill in his chamber. This may well be the undoing of at least both of these politicians, who did not do their homework on this last minute compromise and who should pay the price by being turned out of office in the future for violating the trust they were given by the people not to do harm. In that they failed miserably and should be held accountable by the voters.

It was so hard to watch the actions of the legislature move toward the passage of physician assisted suicide when there was so much valid and scientific evidence available and presented that was ignored. I could not understand this until True Dignity Vermont made the point that cleared up the whole matter for me. Casualties were acceptable! As simple as that! That is why the legislators ignored the doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, nurses and ethicists. They knew from the beginning exactly what they were doing and what the cost of doing it would be, and there was no way they were going to allow facts to stand in the way.

Throughout the debate on this bad law, Act 39, it was amazing how easily the majority of Vermont lawmakers accepted the fiction that physicians can accurately predict the amount of life left in a person. Medicare and hospice require that a patient, to be eligible for coverage, must have a terminal illness with a prognosis of six months or less to live if their condition is allowed to run its natural course. It was never intended that this physician’s prognosis be the basis for making a person eligible for a procedure to make that death happen before the six months. So many times these predictions are wrong and the patient lives much longer. In fact under the care provided by hospice their life can and is often prolonged beyond what it would otherwise have been before the six month prediction. This was not meant to be a pronouncement to trigger a life ending procedure but one to provide care to a person who is dying and needs support. But the death proponents had to have a test so they latched on to these often used but scientifically lacking guesses that physicians are called upon to make. For widespread acceptability of physician assisted suicide the proponents had to limit the application to those patients who appeared to be facing imminent death. Without such, they would have failed. But what is troubling to my thinking is that I believe they knew quite well that the test was flawed but were willing to accept that because they had to win at any cost.

I am a pharmacist, and so many times I tried to point out to the lawmakers that there were dangers in the dosing procedure that was to be used to bring about the death and that those dangers would result in botched attempts, horrific side effects and even exacerbation of already painful situations for a large percentage of dying patients. In some cases the patient would not even die from the procedure but would surely suffer greatly. I asked our legislators to address the objective facts supporting my opinion but could not get them to even respond other than to say they thought the bill had safeguards and was a good bill. They had to avoid this evidence just as they accepted the fictional certainty of a six month physician prognosis in order to get their death bill passed. They had to realize there would be casualties along the way but that would be acceptable in order to accomplish their death on demand objective. They wanted this death law and considered the price affordable. For these folks, physician assisted suicide was more important to them than the wrongful and tragic loss of an innocent human life. But now it appears that in their zeal to get the job done, they carelessly and negligently created a monster that will keep raising its ugly head and doing more damage than even they had expected and that might just cost them their position of power.

Assisted Suicide Fraught with Consequences

The following article was written by Marilyn Golden,  a senior policy analyst with the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund in Berkeley California and published by the Sacramento Bee on July 14, 2013 under the title: Another view: Assisted Suicide fraught with consequences.

Marilyn Golden

By Marilyn Golden - Sacramento Bee, July 14, 2013

The topic of legalizing assisted suicide reappears every few years in California. Thus is the case with the recent commentary in The Bee titled "Assisted suicide could provide peaceful end" (Viewpoints, July 7).

Efforts to legalize assisted suicide have been attempted in California three times, each time failing due to broad bipartisan opposition that included major disability rights organizations, independent living groups, doctors, and civil rights and faith-based groups. Each bill failed because of precarious loopholes, dangerous provisions and insufficient oversight.

In Oregon and Washington, two states where assisted suicide is legal, there is virtually no oversight or regulatory authority. Just Google names such as Barbara Wagner, Kate Cheney or Randy Stroup and you will find tragic stories behind legalizing assisted suicide.

I recall being at the Capitol hearing in 2006 when then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Joe Dunn, a Democrat, voted to stop the bill and noted he could not trust that this would not become a cost issue or include people who didn't actually have terminal illnesses.

In fact, cost is always a concern. As the health care industry evolves, cost of care is becoming an increasingly prominent decision point, which in turn prompts more attempts by cost-minded administrators and HMOs to cut these costs however they can.

Barbara Wagner

An example is the experience of Barbara Wagner, a grandmother from Oregon. During her experience with lung cancer in 2008, she was prescribed a chemotherapy treatment her doctor believed was appropriate and that she wanted. Instead, Wagner received a letter from the Oregon state health plan that indicated it would not pay for the treatment prescribed by her doctor; however, they would pay for her assisted suicide.

Legalizing assisted suicide offers no second chances. Take, for example, a person living with a disability who faces a terminally ill prognosis. Whispers of how expensive their care will be, plus feelings of depression, introduce the message that assisted suicide is cheaper, more efficient and will make things easier on the family.

Society must take a critical look at any proposal to legalize assisted suicide. It's a dangerous Pandora's box and inevitably reduces patient choice by introducing a plethora of crushing pressures that push seriously ill people and, by extension, some with chronic illness and physical disabilities toward a final, cost-cutting conclusion.

Marilyn Golden is a senior policy analyst with the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (www.DREDF.org) in Berkeley.

Oklahoma's Non Discrimination in Treatment Act.

The following article was written by Wesley Smith and published on his blog on July 14, 2013 under the title: Why we Need Medical "Non Discrimination" Laws.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith - July 14, 2013

A medical system deeply dedicated to Hippocratic values of patient equality and uninfected by the “quality of life” virus would not need laws prohibiting discrimination against the sickest and most seriously disabled patients. Alas, doctors don’t take the Hippocratic Oath anymore and are under increasing pressure to consider costs when discussing treatment options. 

Moreover, Obamacare’s potent threat to establish future rationing of the kind seen in the UK threatens to institutionalize discrimination against the medically vulnerable. 

In such an invidious milieu, anti-discrimination laws that govern the practice of medicine, alas, become necessary. One was enacted recently in Oklahoma that seems a good model for the nation. From, the Non Discrimination in Treatment Act:

A. A health care provider shall not deny to a patient a lifepreserving health care service the provider provides to other patients, and the provision of which is directed by the patient or a person legally authorized to make health care decisions for the patient:
1. On the basis of a view that treats extending the life of an elderly, disabled, or terminally ill individual as of lower value than extending the life of an individual who is younger, nondisabled, or not terminally ill; or
2. On the basis of disagreement with how the patient or person legally authorized to make health care decisions for the patientvalues the trade-off between extending the length of the patient’s life and the risk of disability

Hopefully, this will make it much harder for hospital bioethics committees and doctors to force patients off of wanted efficacious life-extending treatment.

This is a body blow to Futile Care Theory, as futilitarian Thaddeus Mason Pope acknowledges. That is a necessary corrective, with so many attempts now in advance directive and POLST proposals that would allow doctors to overrule surrogate decision making–even a patient’s own advance medical directive.

Link to articles on the Rasouli case.

- Rasouli case: End of life often means ending life.

- Sunnybrook doctors ability to cut-off life support goes to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Home Care boss calls for Dignitas suicide clinics in Britain.

Chai Patel

Dr Chai Patel, who overseas 230 nursing homes in Britain is calling for establishment of suicide clinics.

According to the Telegraph newspaper Patel stated at the National Care Homes Congress that:

Dr Patel said the argument for the right to die should come strictly from an "ethical and human perspective" but acknowledged that it could also have a financial impact. 

"If as people we think this is a higher ground to take as a society, then it is the right thing to do, the economic reasons around that should not drive it," he said. "Once people agree this is the way they want to go, [in terms of] the financial resources what will be, will be."

The Telegraph reported that Patel, who is a multi millionaire, and provides medical care to the wealthy, also stated:

This could eventually lead to clinics like Dignitas operating in the UK, rather than forcing people to visit Switzerland to end their life, he said.

Dignitas coffin

The Swiss media reported today that the Dignitas suicide clinic in Basel Switzerland assisted the suicide of Pietro D’Amico, a 62-year-old magistrate from Calabria in southern Italy, in April, 2013 after D'Amico received a wrong diagnosis.

Bioethicist Wesley Smith stated today that:

There’s money to be made off of suicide clinics. Perhaps the not so good doctor wants to get in on the ground floor.

Dr Patel's comments are very dangerous to the many people who have become dependent on others, especially their care-givers. Society should be treating its elders with respect. Elders are not trash to be disposed.

Link to the article: Dignitas founder, Ludwig Minelli, is reported to be making millions on assisted suicide, but the Swiss government offers no oversight. 

Swiss assisted suicide clinic kills an Italian man with a wrong diagnosis.

Pietro D'Amico

The Dignitas suicide clinic in Basel Switzerland assisted the suicide death of Pietro D’Amico, a 62-year-old magistrate from Calabria in southern Italy, in April, 2013 after D'Amico received a wrong diagnosis.

Assisted suicide and euthanasia must be prohibited. The decision of one person to end the life of another person is irrevocable. People who are not terminal or living with depression, cannot be treated for their condition once they are dead.

Dignitas is a suicide clinic that is operated by Ludwig Minella, a retired lawyer. Dignitas is known for encouraging the suicide deaths of foreign "suicide tourists" for a fee.

An article that was published in Switzerland's english news service, The Local, stated:

The father-of-one took the decision after a wrong diagnosis from Italian and Swiss doctors, his family's lawyer Michele Roccisano told Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. 

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

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

Dignitas has also been connected to other controversies: 

1. The assisted suicide death of a UK man with dementia.

2. The Swiss government refusing to regulate assisted suicide groups even after a Zurich prosecutor admitted that assisted suicide needed to be regulated.

3. June 2012, the Canton Vaud voted to allow assisted suicide groups to operate in the nursing homes.

4. Dignitas founder, Ludwig Minelli, was reported to be making millions on assisted suicide.

5. Former Dignitas employee, Soraya Wernli, spoke about the many abuses at the Dignitas suicide clinic.

Australian federal MP applauds book by Alex Schadenberg

The following article was written by Paul Russell, the leader and founder of HOPE Australia and published on his blog under the title: Leading Federal MP applauds Alex Schadenberg.

The article by Paul Russell stated:

On the evening of Tuesday July 9, 50  HOPE supporters gathered at the Pagoda Chinese Restaurant in Adelaide to officially launch the Australian Edition of Alex Schadenberg's book: Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide.

In October of 2010, the HOPE organisation itself was launched in the very same room at this same restaurant on the occasion of Alex's first visit to Australia.

The book was launched by The Hon Kevin Andrews MP, the Federal Member for Menzies in Victoria. Kevin lead the charge in 1997 to successfully overturn the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act.  Australia became the first nation to experience legal euthanasia and, by Kevin's prosecution of his bill, the only place to have successfully overturned such legislation.

Kevin Andrews & Paul Russell

In introducing Kevin, Paul Russell, founder of HOPE, said that Kevin rightly enjoyed 'hero-status' amongst those who oppose euthanasia & assisted suicide.

In his speech he gave those present an insight into the 1997 debate, a solid defence of the status quo and a critical analysis of the flaws in the pro-euthanasia argument.

He offered Alex Schadenberg his thanks and congratulations for the foresight and dedication to produce the book which, as he observed, reinforces the principle arguments against euthanasia using only published studies.

After the address, Paul Russell explored the background to Alex's book through the series of reports claiming falsely that vulnerable people are not at risk of abuse from euthanasia & assisted suicide legislation. He said that the pro-euthanasia movement's intense focus on attempting to debunk this crucial element of the debate was itself a sign that the risk remains as a road block to their ends.

Mr Andrews also thanked those present for all their work in continuing to oppose euthanasia legislation and gave encouragement to HOPE as it continues to build its networks and effectiveness.

The book, Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide is available for $20.00 (includes shipping) by clicking HERE. Hope Australia is also selling the book. Here.

Links to: 
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International selects new leadership team.

New South Wales Australian parliament soundly rejects euthanasia bill.
Australian Euthanasia bill will be defeated.

Euthanasia bill defeated in South Australian parliament.

No right to deny spoon feeding to Canadian woman.

Alex Schadenberg

Yesterday, I responded to the article in the national post that claimed that a woman in BC was being denied her "right to die" because the institution where she lived continued to feed her normally. by stating:

To intentionally deny a person the basic necessaries of life, such as feeding by spoon, is a form of abandonment. 

To intentionally cause a person to die, who is not otherwise dying, by dehydrating that person to death, is ethically the same as euthanasia. 

Care-givers should not be forced to act in a manner that they are convinced is unethical. 

Wesley Smith

Bioethicist, Wesley Smith responded on his blog to the Bentley case with the following article titled: No Right to Die by Denied Spoon Feeding. Smith stated:

A Canadian woman directed that she be refused medical treatment, and indeed, that she be euthanized if she had Alzheimer’s and could not recognize her children. She has the disease and is spoon fed.  But the family wants that stopped.. From the National Post story:

According to Ms. Hammond, she is lifted into and out of bed with a hoist, spends her time virtually motionless in a wheelchair and is kept alive only through regular spoon-feeding.  

“She’s not taking it by choice, that’s clear,” said Dr. Andrew Edelson, Ms. Bentley’s doctor, who suspects the whole feeding process is purely reflex.  

“She doesn’t have the ability to make choice and if she had the ability to make choice, she would refuse; she’d clamp her mouth shut and nobody would try to feed her,” he said. 

Under typical circumstances, Ms. Bentley would already be dead. Metro Vancouver has no shortage of seniors who have drawn up explicit end-of-life directives and do-not-resuscitate orders, and those are usually respected, according to Dr. Edelson. 

“I’ve spoken with a fair number of health professionals about this case, and everybody is dismayed, to say the least; we’re shocked that this is happening,” he said.

Baloney. She isn’t being forced onto medical machines, given unwanted CPR, or indeed, being fed by tube. She is alive because her body hasn’t shut down and she can eat and drink. Under these circumstances it would be shocking–and criminal–if a medical team withheld food and water from a helpless woman capable of–and actually taking–nourishment.

This is a classic case of mixing apples and oranges. People have the right to direct that medical treatment be denied, but spoon feeding isn’t medical treatment. It is humane care–the least we owe everyone.

Are we now going to allow vulnerable patients to be denied food and water when the can–and are–eating? And can you imagine forcing medical staffers to be complicit in an intentional starvation/dehydration under these circumstances?

If she eats, she eats. If she drinks, she drinks. Nobody should have the power to order themselves starved in advance when they can take food and water through natural means.

The headline says that starving her–again, when she is eating on her own!–would be to allow her to “die with dignity.” Culture of death, Wesley? What culture of death?

Better care, not euthanasia should be the goal of end-of-life treatment

The following article was written by Dr William Reichel and published in the Baltimore Sun on July 6, 2013, with the title: Better care, not euthanasia, should be the goal of end-of-life treatment.

William Reichel

I was dismayed to read Catherine Weber's letter calling for right-to-die legislation ("Right-to-die legislation needed in Maryland," July 1).

I am opposed to physician-assisted suicide not only in Maryland but throughout America. Hospice and palliative care can reduce the demand for those steps. Cicely Saunders, who founded the esteemed St. Christopher's Hospice in London, a treatment facility for dying patients, reported almost no requests for euthanasia when pain was significantly reduced and feelings of loneliness were addressed.

In the Netherlands, euthanasia was carried out before a law was passed legalizing it. But with the law, Dutch physicians committed euthanasia without patients' consent or approval by a second physician, even though they were required to get it. No wonder there are elders in Dutch nursing facilities who fear what their doctors might do without their consent.

Finally, our health care system, which is increasingly focused on cost-effectiveness, may be pushing patients down a slippery slope by identifying them as not having lives worth living. Indeed, with the corporatization of health care, we are witnessing many mercantile practices that threaten the professional ethics embodied in the Hippocratic Oath that have served us well 2,500 years.

Let's put to use the new understanding of hospice and palliative or comfort care that in recent years has created a meaningful paradigm shift for better end-of-life care.

William Reichel, Washington

The writer is affiliated with the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at the Georgetown University School of Medicine.

Assisted suicide bill in the UK fails public safety test.

The following article was written by Dr Peter Saunders, the campaign director for the Care Not Killing Alliance, and published on his blog on July 8, 2013 under the title: Leading Parliamentary Think Tank says Lord Falconers 'Assisted Dying' Bill fails public safety test.

Peter Saunders

By Dr Peter Saunders

Living and Dying Well (LDW) is a public policy research organisation established in 2010 to promote clear thinking on the end-of-life debate and to explore the complexities surrounding 'assisted dying' and other end-of-life issues.

It has just published a comprehensive report on Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill which was introduced into the House of Lords on 15 May.

Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill [HL Bill 24] is the fourth of its kind to come before the House of Lords in the last ten years and seeks to authorise assisted suicide for mentally competent adults with less than six months to live.

None of its predecessors has made progress and the last one (Lord Joffe's Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill) was rejected in May 2006.

House of Lords

LDW’s report, jointly authored by eleven members of the House of Lords, concludes that Falconer’s bill ‘is little different from Lord Joffe's - it seeks to license doctors to supply lethal drugs to terminally ill patients to enable them to end their lives’.

The authors include leading lawyers, doctors and disabled peoples’ advocates including Baroness Butler Sloss, Lord Carlile, Baroness Finlay and Baroness Campbell.

They recognise that ‘some people support legalisation of assisted suicide on grounds of autonomy and others oppose it as immoral’ but then seek to assess the bill on the ‘criterion of public safety’ - whether its enactment would ‘put seriously ill people at risk of harm’.

The bill, say the Peers, ‘contains no safeguards, beyond stating eligibility criteria, to govern the assessment of requests for assisted suicide’. Furthermore, it ‘relegates important questions such as how mental capacity and clear and settled intent are to be established to codes of practice to be drawn up after an assisted suicide law has been approved by Parliament’.

This is ‘wholly inadequate’ and on the issue of safeguards alone, they argue, ‘the bill is not fit for purpose’.

It ‘places responsibility for assessing applicants for assisted suicide and supplying them with lethal drugs on the shoulders of the medical profession’ but at the same time ‘ignores expert medical evidence given to Parliament in recent years regarding the unreliability of prognoses of terminal illness at the range it envisages’.

‘Other considerations aside’, they assert, ‘the bill fails the public safety test by a considerable margin’.

The report concludes that the law that we have already ‘has the discretion to deal with exceptional cases in an exceptional way’ and that Lord Falconer's bill, by creating ‘a licensing system’ for assisted suicide crosses ‘an important Rubicon’.

To create exceptions to the blanket prohibition on assisted suicide which are ‘based on arbitrary criteria such as terminal illness or mental capacity, is to create lines in the sand, easily crossed and hard to defend. No convincing case has been advanced as to why these important considerations should be set aside.'

The tightly drafted report runs to eleven pages and is well worthy of careful study.