Disability rights group opposes Tasmania euthanasia bill.

The following letter was published in the Tasmanian Times.com on October 14, 2013.

Members of the House of Assembly

Parliament of Tasmania

Dear Members

Re: Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2013

We are writing regarding this Bill which is currently before the Parliament. 

Craig Wallace from Lives Worth Living (LWL)

Lives Worth Living (LWL) is a network of senior disability rights advocates who have concerns about euthanasia and eugenics. We are not a religious group or a pro-life lobby group. Our views on the Bill emerge from a secular rights basis.

We are all people with disabilities. Some of our disabilities are life long and well advanced and would be included in the Bill.

We acknowledge that the disability community does not have a single view on euthanasia. There are some members who are concerned about legalised suicide for people with disabilities given the potential for abuse and perverse outcomes and others who do not have a view or support a right to choice and believe in the right to make end of life decisions for people with an illness like inoperable Cancer. 

However there is a widely held view that legislation must have safeguards and closely attend to the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities which has been ratified by Australia.

In view of the above, the current Bill concerns us on a number of levels:

• The Bill does not mention the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities which has been ratified by Australia. Article 10 of the Bill, which people with disabilities strongly lobbied for, provides that States Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others. It is of concern that the opening sections of the Bill do not mention the Convention at all and stress equality of outcome for people with disability.

• This Bill is not confined to terminal illness and we believe opens the door to the euthanasia of people with disabilities. In section 11 there is deep blurring between medical conditions and disability which is made more obtuse rather than clarified within the Bill:

● The Bill says that eligibility includes persons with a: “progressive medical condition that is causing persistent and not relievable suffering, for a person diagnosed with the medical condition,that is intolerable for the person –and that is in the advanced stages with no reasonable prospect of a permanent improvement in the person’s medical condition.”

● In section 2 the Bill seeks to qualify this by saying that: “For the avoidance of doubt, a person does not have an eligible medical condition solely because of the age of the person, any disability of the person or any psychological illness of the person”.

● Rather than avoiding doubt, this clouds matters - (a) Most disabilities are permanent and not able to be cured. (b) Many disabilities are progressive or have stages. (c) Many people who acquire disabilities believe them to be intolerable only to change our minds over time.

● This appears to effectively open the door to the Bill encompassing some disabilities which could be unacceptable to a person at a point in time but then become bearable at a later point in time given the right supports. Many disabilities such as a high level spinal injury, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy or motor neurone disease might fall into this category. In the absence of supports for people with these disabilities this Bill is open to perverse outcomes and exploitation of vulnerable people.

• LWL is concerned that the bill creates a double standard in the treatment and interventions around ending one’s life based on disability. Euthanasia is assisted suicide and as we read it the Bill fails to mandate suicide prevention and other counselling which may identify other issues in people’s lives which weigh in their decisions. Where counselling is addressed it is an option for the primary practitioner, not mandated. 

• The act does not invite the person to indicate whether a lack of disability or other supports might be impacting on their decision, LWL believes that the current broke and broken disability support system around Australia, including in Tasmania, may create a raft of pressures in people’s lives which may impact on decisions. Arguably, it would enable a similar outcome to the deaths of the two twins in Belgium who took their own lives on the basis that becoming deaf/blind could be unendurable.

• LWL has experience of many people with dual disability, including long term vulnerable people whose supports have broken down. The Bill deals with depression but does not mention other forms of psychosocial disability which may impact on a person’s decision making. The way in which cognitive, intellectual or dual disability would interact with consent is unclear. 

• We have some concerns about arrangements for consent under the Bill, especially for people with communication barriers. It is possible to imagine a situation where a person with a disability has no say at all or where a family member who is familiar with that person’s way of communicating is seen as the primary source of consent. 

LWL supports the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the difference it will make to the lives of people with disability. We believe the proper support, not suicide, is the decent path to better lives with dignity for people with disability. The NDIS hasn’t been fully introduced. In the absence of these supports, we believe that people with disability may be subjected to a raft of subtle emotional, financial and personal pressures to end our lives.

Disability is high in Tasmania and it troubles us that Tasmanians with disability may be at higher risk of these perverse outcomes from a euthanasia bill which goes broader than terminal illness. Just under one in four Tasmanians (23%) reported a disability in 2009. This was higher than the national average of 19 per cent.

LWL also believes that there is a need for more considered national work on a range of issues at the health/disability interface and to harmonise these to avoid the risk of different human rights outcomes based on where people live. 

This work should include the adoption of a National Position on Eugenics and Biotechnology by all Australian First Ministers covering issues which act on Article 10 of the UN Convention including: Assisted Suicide on the grounds of disability, Genetic Screening, Involuntary sterilisation and certain surgical procedures. 

LWL believes that the Bill as it stands raises serious issues and risks for people with disability and we hope it is defeated in the Parliament of Tasmania. We are also releasing this letter publicly to contribute to community debate. 

Signed,

Joan Hume OAM

John Moxon

Craig Wallace

Lives Worth Living

14 October 2013

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Submission to the Quebec Committee on Health and Social Services Committee

Submission to the Quebec Committee on Health and Social Services Committee re: Bill 52: “An Act Respecting End-of-Life Care” 

Proposed changes to the law, Bill 52, which have the effect of legalizing euthanasia in Quebec represent a serious risk to people at the most vulnerable time of their life. The proposed changes reflect a fundamental transformation in the doctor patient relationship which runs contrary to the established ethic and values of the medical profession throughout Quebec, Canada and around the world.

Virtually every medical association in Canada and around the world have upheld the principle, to “Do No Harm” by opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide as being contrary to basic medical ethics.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide is legal in seven small jurisdictions throughout the world. Continued prohibition of euthanasia remains the norm in virtually every country, state, and international convention.

It is a mistake that will have tragic consequences if Quebec legalize euthanasia because they will also be placing members of society at risk of subtle pressure for euthanasia or having it inflicted upon them without request.

Maintaining a prohibition on euthanasia is based on patient safety and the equal protection of every Quebec citizen, especially when they are at the most vulnerable time of their life.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC)

EPC is a not-for-profit organization which represents a broad cross-section of the Canadian population, including people with disabilities, seniors, healthcare practitioners and members of different cultural and religious backgrounds. 

Our mandate is to preserve and enforce social, legal and medical safeguards prohibiting assisted death and to promote compassionate healthcare respectful of the lives, dignity and autonomy of vulnerable people.

EPC was granted intervener standing by the Quebec Superior Court in the case of Leblanc c. Canada (Procureur général). This case involved a constitutional challenge to s.241(1)(b) of the Criminal Code in an attempt to strike down laws against assisted suicide in Canada.

EPC was granted intervener standing by the BC Supreme Court and by the BC Court of Appeal in Carter v. Attorney General. This case involved a constitutional challenge to s.241(1)(b) of the Criminal Code and related provisions in an attempt to strike down the laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia in Canada.

EPC was granted intervener standing before the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal in the case of Rasouli v. Cuthbertson (2011) ONCA 482. This case involves the interpretation of Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act and particularly the definition of treatment as including the requirement of consent to implement a plan of treatment which includes the withdrawal of mechanical ventilation and implementation of palliative care where such a plan is anticipated to result in the death of the patient despite objections raised by the applicant’s substitute decision-maker.

EPC was granted intervener standing in the Appeal court of Ontario case of Scardoni v. Hawryluck (2004), 69 O.R. (3d) 700.  This case involved the interpretation of prior expressed wishes under the Health Care Consent Act in Ontario and the proper application of the best interests test set out under Section 21 (1) of that Act, along with argument as to the appropriate means by which to interpret relevant provisions of the Act in a manner consistent with the terms and values set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and particularly sections 7 and 15.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition’s Position:

The question of legalizing euthanasia is profound. This question cannot be treated lightly and it must be decided based on the common good of every member of society.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes all forms of euthanasia and assisted suicide. We are convinced that it is never acceptable to provide a means, in law, for one person to have the right in law, to cause the death of another person. We recognize that prohibitions on causing the death of another human being are designed to equally protect every citizen in society.

We understand that situations occur, whereby people seek to end their lives, but we are convinced that these situations become very different when the law allows someone else to actually cause the other person’s death.

The stakes are high in the euthanasia debate. The euthanasia debate concerns personal and societal decisions to intentionally cause the death of people. 

Definitions:

Euthanasia is to knowingly and intentionally perform an act that is explicitly intended to end another person’s life 1 whereby the death is caused by the act. The specific conditions for euthanasia will vary based on laws, rules, and social acceptance.

Assisted suicide means to knowingly and intentionally provide a person with the knowledge or means or both required to commit suicide, including counseling about lethal doses of drugs, prescribing such lethal doses or supplying the drugs.1 

Bill 52: “An Act Respecting End-of-Life Care” avoids using the terms euthanasia or assisted suicide in the debate, but rather uses the term “medical aid in dying” as part of “end-of-life care.”2 The term “medical aid in dying” can have a wider application and lacks the precise definitions of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

It is assumed that the Quebec government intends through Bill 52 to regulate the acts of “medical aid in dying.” In his critique of Bill 52, Alex Schadenberg, our executive director, points out that Bill 52 employs ambiguous language.3

EPC published a critique of Bill 52 on June 18th stating:

Bill 52: “An Act respecting end-of-life care” defines “end-of-life care” to mean: palliative care provided to persons at the end of their lives, including terminal palliative sedation, and medical aid in dying.

The bill states that doctors would administer “medical aid in dying.” Euthanasia is to directly and intentionally cause the death of another person, usually by administering a lethal injection. 

"Medical aid in dying" is therefore a euphemism for euthanasia in Bill 52.

Since the definition of palliative care includes: terminal palliative sedation and medical aid in dying, therefore the definition of palliative care includes euthanasia.

Bill 52 states that it creates a “right to receive palliative care.” A right to receive palliative care would be good, except that the definition of palliative care includes medical aid in dying (euthanasia). Therefore Bill 52 also creating a right to receive euthanasia.

The definition of “terminal palliative sedation” in Bill 52 is unclear. Sedation for the purposes of palliation is good, but due to the vague definition, EPC is concerned that the abuse of terminal palliative sedation will result in euthanasia without request being done “under the radar” and being reported as terminal palliative sedation.3

Due to the vague, ambiguous and unclear definitions that Bill 52 uses, the EPC sends out a warning that if passed, Bill 52 is likely to be significantly abused in a similar manner to the Belgian euthanasia law.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Applauds Ruling of BC Appeal Court on Assisted Suicide.

Media Release - Toronto, Thursday October 10, 2013 /CNW/

The BC Court of Appeal has struck down the decision by Justice Smith and upheld the current laws which protect Canadians from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) intervened in the BC assisted suicide case in order to uphold the principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and basic human rights. EPC is pleased that the Court has followed the lead of Canadian Parliament, the Supreme Court of Canada, and of the majority of Parliaments and Supreme Courts around the world in finding that the prohibitions against assisted suicide represent an important protection against abuse of vulnerable people.

EPC legal counsel Hugh Scher states:

EPC is concerned about the safety, security and equality of people with disabilities and seniors, which is central to the protections set out under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our Criminal Code. 

Will Johnston at BC Court.

EPC-BC chair Dr. William Johnston states:

The debate is over whether what the suicidal person proposes – to kill themselves – is a goal which should be shared and facilitated by the state. I suggest there are alternate goals like the treatment of depression and other symptoms, to which the state should apply itself. When someone has lost hope for the future, finds no meaning in their life, and sees only one solution – death – we recognize a suicidal depression. That bleak tunnel vision should evoke suicide prevention, not euthanasia.

Disability rights advocate Amy Hasbrouck of Toujours Vivant - Not Dead Yet states:

People with disabilities, chronic illness and seniors are negatively affected by assisted suicide and euthanasia because it leads to the impression that our lives are lacking in meaning and value as compared to other Canadians.

Alex Schadenberg interview

EPC Executive Director, Alex Schadenberg states:

The evidence is clear that in jurisdictions where these practices have been legalized, there have been significant abuses of vulnerable people. For example, studies in Belgium demonstrate that 32% of people killed under the Belgian law were killed without consent and without their own request, in breach of a fundamental condition of that law. 

Not one of these doctors has been prosecuted.

EPC will seek to intervene should this matter be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada with a view to protecting the dignity and equality of all Canadians, particularly those who are most vulnerable to the risks of abuse from assisted suicide.

For further information, please contact:

Dr. William Johnston, (Vancouver) EPC-BC Chair: (604) 220-2042 – willjohnston@shaw.ca

Hugh Scher, (Toronto) EPC Legal Counsel: (416) 816-6115 – hugh@sdlaw.ca

Alex Schadenberg, (London) EPC Executive Director: (519) 851-1434 – info@epcc.ca

Amy Hasbrouck, (Montreal) Tourjours Vivant - Not Dead Yet: (450) 921-3057 – info@tv-ndy.ca

Links to other similar articles:
EPC wants BC Court of Appeal to reverse errors in assisted suicide case.
Responding to the disturbing decision by Justice Smith in the Carter case.
BC Court case seeks to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide and euthanasia.

EPC hopes the BC Court of Appeal reversed the errors in assisted suicide court case

Media Release: October 9, 2013

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC), an intervener in the BC Court of Appeal assisted suicide case, hopes that the BC Court of Appeal has followed the lead of the Irish Supreme Court who upheld the right of the state to protect its citizens from assisted suicide and reverse the errors in the court decision concerning assisted suicide and euthanasia in Canada.

Hugh Scher

EPC legal counsel Hugh Scher stated:

"EPC is concerned about the safety, security and equality of people with disabilities and seniors, which is central to the protections set out under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our Criminal Code." 

Toujour-Vivant– Not Dead Yet leader, Amy Hasbrouck stated:

“People with disabilities, chronic illnesses and seniors are negatively affected by assisted suicide, euthanasia and other end-of-life practices.” 

EPC-BC chair Dr. Will Johnston expressed his concern that legal assisted suicide has already being extended to people who are not terminally ill in jurisdictions where it is practiced.

Dr Will Johnston

Johnston also stated: 

"Elder abuse, is already difficult to detect, would be no easier to combat when a suicide offer is always dangling before a vulnerable older person. Giving legal immunity to those who would provide suicide does not make our loved ones safer."

EPC Executive Director, Alex Schadenberg, stated: 

"the Carter decision erred in several significant areas ... the judge came to her decision by falsely assuming that there is a 'right to suicide' in Canada."
 "the Carter decision also misinterpreted data from other jurisdictions that have legalized assisted death by stating that there is no significant risk to vulnerable patient groups. A study from Belgium found that 32% of all assisted deaths were done without request and incompetent people who are over the age of 80 were vulnerable to dying by an assisted death without request."

 SOURCE: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of Canada (EPC)

For further information:

Dr. Will Johnston, (Vancouver) EPC-BC Chair: (604) 220-2042, willjohnston@shaw.ca

Hugh Scher, (Toronto) EPC Legal Counsel: (416) 816-6115, hugh@sdlaw.ca

Amy Hasbrouck, (Montreal) Tourjours Vivant–Not Dead Yet: (450) 921-3057, info@tv-ndy.ca

Alex Schadenberg, (London) EPC Executive Director: (519) 851-1434, info@epcc.ca

Links to similar articles:

Protecting the vulnerable, still the goal says government lawyer.

Legalizing assisted suicide causes non-dying persons to be steered to suicide.

Responding to the disturbing decision by Justice Smith in the Carter case.

Academic Paper critical of euthanasia released in Tasmania.

Paul Russell with
Alex Schadenberg

The following article was written by Paul Russell, the leader of HOPE Australia and published today on their blog.

By Paul Russell

Academic Paper (link): “Voluntary Euthanasia and ‘Assisted Dying’ in Tasmania: A Response to Giddings and McKim” 

In February this year, the Tasmanian Premier, Lara Giddings and Nick McKim MP released a discussion paper on euthanasia seeking submissions and input from the community on a draft proposal for legislation they referred to as 'Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD)'. Their intention to work towards this legislative change had been originally announced in mid-2010.

Any debate on voluntary assisted dying is going to be difficult, but as elected representatives we believe it is our responsibility to take on the challenging questions of reform to ensure that our laws in this area are contemporary, transparent and in-line with community expectations. (from the VAD paper's introduction)

We understand that there were in excess of 900 responses to the ‘discussion paper’. The closing date for submissions was March 15. One canny observer wondered if it was simply a coincidence that the consultation ended on the ‘Ides of March’ – I’ll leave readers to ponder that for themselves.

Giddings and McKim gave no undertaking in the paper that they would produce a summary report of findings and, to date and with the bill to be debated in a week, there is no sign that the authors intend to share the results for the benefit of the discussion and transparency.

At the time of the paper’s launch, RealDignityTasmania spokesman, Dr. Paul Dunne made the following observation:

The paper employs selective and deficient research, much of which is funded by known pro-euthanasia advocates, designed to paint a picture of flawless implementation of legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide systems around the world. The main authorities cited by Giddings and McKim are the result of known pro-euthanasia initiatives. Key evidence has been ignored in this paper.

Also aware of this bias, the HOPE submission argued for a broader public discussion:

Given that this presentation provides the VAD paper with an ‘advanced status of authority’ we believe that it is inappropriate for the VAD paper to stand in the public square without the same opportunity being advanced to the contrary argument.  (HOPE submission page 23)

This all adds to the conclusion that this whole affair is essentially an exercise in gnostic paternalism. All of us, for reasons unknown, should trust that Giddings and McKim have done all the hard work of study for us, so we needn’t worry ourselves over the detail but simply accept that they know what’s best for Tasmanians!

The HOPE submission concluded with this warning:

Without a conscious attempt by the authors of the VAD paper to provide public access to the contrary argument on a par with that afforded the VAD; Tasmanians will have been denied the opportunity to exercise rational judgement – choice. The authors, in advancing their agenda, need also to observe the precautionary principle, with the highest standards of proof, lest, without such appropriate scrutiny, Tasmanian citizens are put at risk of their lives by such legislation.

With a week until the resumption of the parliament, two Tasmanian academics have released their own report on the discussion paper. Jeremy Pritchard holds a PhD in law and is a Researcher and Lecturer at the University of Tasmania (UTAS) in the field of Criminology. Hannah Graham is an Associate Lecturer in Sociology and Criminology and a Research Assistant in the Faculty of Law at UTAS.

Their 34 page analysis entitled: “Voluntary Euthanasia and ‘Assisted Dying’ in Tasmania: A Response to Giddings and McKim” is critical of the approach taken by the Giddings/McKim paper, summarizing that:

“…the paper produced by Giddings and McKim does not constitute a compelling evidence-based case for changing the law. The risks of proceeding with the model that they propose are not justified.”

They observe that:

"A number of the claims that they make inappropriately imply concrete facts"(i.e. sentiments along the lines of “the evidence has spoken” and “our research shows…”) without acknowledging the depth of international contention on certain topics." 

“…significant amounts of empirical evidence and alternative academic and professional perspectives have been understated or omitted in their paper.” 

”We look at what is being proposed and what is missing. In particular, we analyse what is missing from Giddings and McKim’s portrayal of the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia and assisted dying in jurisdictions, including the Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon.”

The author’s media statement today provides a good summary: 

“We felt that a response in the form of a research paper was necessary because Lara Giddings and Nick McKim’s paper, to our view, understates the complexity of international evidence and debate on the topic of euthanasia. Our paper disagrees with a number of their claims and incorporates literature which was not included in their document. We reference over 180 sources, mainly academic publications and government reports.”

Giddings and McKim’s paper relied substantially upon certain select academic papers cited without due regard for known criticisms. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, they cited the Royal Society of Canada report, the UK Commission on Assisted Dying and the recent report from the think-tank, Australia 21 which all adopted a similar line of argument, likewise omitting or dismissing references to studies and analyses that put the counter argument. 

One could observe that such circular and almost exclusive referencing (each report building upon the others) was a potential ‘perfect storm’ in the making. Nor is it a stretch to observe that, whether deliberate or not, the absence of serious critique of the ‘vulnerable persons’ question could leave the authors of these papers open to a claim that this could, itself, constitute abuse by neglect.

Graham and Pritchard deal with the issues of Elder Abuse, Disability, Feminist perspectives, the Slippery Slope arguments as well as a thorough review of the literature pertaining to Belgium, The Netherlands, Oregon and the Fleming Court case in Ireland.

They conclude:

“Based on the evidence and experiences presented in this paper, we conclude that there are unjustifiable risks in proceeding with the euthanasia law reform proposed by Giddings and McKim.”

The same might also be said for the debates current in Quebec, France, England and Scotland.

We eagerly await a reply from the Premier and Mr McKim.

The book Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide by Alex Schadenberg analyses the studies that confirm that the risk to vulnerable people is real, that vulnerable people in places such as The Netherlands and Belgium are at risk.

The book retails for $20.00. For more information and to purchase your copy. Link. 

Euthanasia: An easy way to cover up medical mistakes in Belgium.

The following article was originally published by Mercatornet under the title: Paying the price for their autonomy.

By Tom Mortier - Mercatornet - October 4, 2013.

The latest euthanasia scandal in Belgium shows that some doctors have discovered an easy way to dispose of some of their medical failures. They can kill them. Legally.

Last Monday afternoon the victim of a botched sex reassignment surgery was euthanased by the country’s leading euthanasia doctor, Wim Distelmans. Cameramen from a local TV station filmed the lethal injection. 

Forty-four-year-old Nathan Verhelst was born as Nancy Verhelst into a family which despised girls. "When I saw 'Nancy' for the first time, my dream was shattered,” her mother told the Het Laatste Nieuws newspaper. “She was so ugly. I had a phantom birth. Her death does not bother me.”

Unsurprisingly, Nancy grew up hating her femininity. Four years ago she embarked upon a course of hormone therapy and last year she had her breasts surgically removed and underwent surgery to construct a penis. Belgian media showed images of Nathan, Nancy’s masculine alter ego, now tattooed with a shaven head, sun-bathing on a beach. 

But the operations did not work. "I was ready to celebrate my new birth," he told Het Laatste Nieuws. "But when I looked in the mirror, I was disgusted with myself. My new breasts did not match my expectations and my new penis had symptoms of rejection. I do not want to be... a monster."

Nathan’s solution was to seek euthanasia. He sought the help of Dr Distelmans. After studying his case and giving him six months of counselling, Dr Distelmans and his team decided to grant his request because it fulfilled all the conditions of the law. Although Nathan was not terminally ill, he was experiencing unbearable psychological suffering. Two other doctors agreed, one of them a psychiatrist. And on September 30, Dr Distelmans gave him a lethal injection.

Nancy Verhelst’s doctors -- her psychiatrist, urologist, gynaecologist, and cosmetic surgeon -- had destroyed her life. But they weren’t the ones who paid the price. She did.

This is not the first time that legal euthanasia has erased the errors of the medical profession in Belgium.

Earlier this year the well-documented case of Ann G (her full name did not become public) emerged in the media. She had suffered from anorexia nervosa for 25 years and was being treated by a psychiatrist with an international reputation for expertise in her condition, Walter Vandereycken. Instead of helping her, he sexually abused her. She accused him of this on national television. Instead of being deregistered and jailed, he went back to work in private practice. Although he was suspended by the Catholic University of Leuven (KULeuven), this amounted to a slap on the wrist. Ann G was distraught. She still had to live with “the cancer in her head” of anorexia, she had become a victim of sexual abuse, and she could get no justice.

She found a solution. Late last year she sought euthanasia.

There’s more.

Mark and Eddy Verbessem were 45-year-old deaf identical twins who lived together and worked as cobblers. They were going blind and they thought that they had nothing to live for. On December 14, Dr Distelmans euthanased them. He described it with a certain sense of professional pride as the world’s first case of “double euthanasia”.

Once again patients paid the ultimate price for professional incompetence. The brothers’ situation was difficult but they were not terminally ill and were not suffering any physical pain. As deaf communities pointed out, being deaf and blind is not a death sentence. America’s best-known deafblind person, Helen Keller, travelled the world, wrote books and became an ardent propagandist for socialism.

The real problem is Belgium’s woeful social services. A recent judgement by the European Committee on Social Rights found that that its inadequate provision of care and accommodation for highly dependent persons with disabilities amounted to a violation of human rights.

In many other countries, cases like Nathan Verhelst and Ann G. would have been treated as medical malpractice cases. But this is no longer the case in Belgium! Some doctors are now effectively escaping the consequences of their patients' wretchedness because this very wretchedness has led them to ask for death. The Belgian medical profession has become judge, jury and executioner for victims of its own incompetence and indifference.

If there is one man who illustrates this whole process, it is Dr Wim Distelmans.

Distelmans is propagandist-in-chief for Belgian euthanasia. His craggily handsome features appear on the cover of national magazines and he has been honoured many times by progressive groups. He has written numerous op-eds defending euthanasia. In April last year, he was declared a “hero of autonomy” for his “pioneering” work .

Distelmans is also practitioner-in-chief of Belgian euthanasia.  He has euthanased a number of patients and trains other doctors in his lethal art.

And Distelmans is also the assessor-in-chief of Belgian euthanasia. To anyone outside Belgium this must sound incredible, but in my country this is unblinkingly accepted. He helped to draft the 2002 Belgian euthanasia law and he is the chairman of the Federal Control and Assessment Commission which determines whether euthanasia cases have been carried out according to the provisions of the law.

The only argument for euthanasia which makes any sense at all in a humane society in the developed world is respect for autonomy. But after having been tested in Belgium’s living laboratory, this starry-eyed notion stands condemned as a hollow fraud.

Doctors abuse patients and then these patients autonomously ask doctors for euthanasia. How can this possibly be described as autonomy?

After sex reassignment surgery, Nathan Verhelst had a gigantic tattoo emblazoned on the left side of his chest: two fluttering swallows beneath the words “Free as a bird”. It was a lie; his doctors’ grotesque, gigantic, heartless promise was a deadly lie. And when he found out that it had been a lie, they offered him euthanasia.

In Belgium patient autonomy is for the birds.

Dr Tom Mortier lectures in chemistry at Leuven University College, in Belgium.

Links to similar articles.

Botched sex change operation victim euthanized in Belgium.

Belgian woman with Anorexia dies by euthanasia.

Belgium twins euthanized out of fear of blindness.

Belgian bill would extend euthanasia to children with disabilities and people with dementia.

By Alex Schadenberg, 

An article written by Adam Withnall and published in the The Independent on October 8, 2013 is reporting that the Belgian parliament has resumed its debate on the extension of euthanasia to children with disabilities and people with Alzheimer's/dementia.

The article states:

Belgium is set to debate this week whether or not it will extend its laws allowing euthanasia to include children and those suffering from long-term “diseases of the brain” like Alzheimer’s. ... 

Under the bill being considered, this could be extended to those under 18 if they requested it, their parents gave their consent, and where an expert psychologist deemed the child to fully understand the implications of their decision. ... 

Under the proposals, medically-assisted euthanasia would also be offered as an option to those suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. 

Once diagnosed and while still lucid, they would be able to consent to being killed when their illness progressed to the point where doctors decided they were no longer interacting with society – even if on the surface they appeared to be happy and well.

The bill, which was introduced in December 2012 is considering extending the euthanasia law because they are already euthanizing newborns with disabilities and people with dementia/Alzheimer's. Withnall stated:

Supporters of the euthanasia bill say it would simply be bringing under legal control something which already happens anyway. Studies have shown that, with terminally ill children whose parents are begging for their suffering to be brought to an end, doctors have been steadily increasing doses of painkillers until they reach lethal amounts. 

Dr Dominique Biarent, who runs the intensive care unit at a Brussels children’s hospital, told the Wall Street Journal that this does happen, though rarely, and only ever at the initiative of the child’s parents.

Canadians should also be concerned. The Quebec government is currently debating Bill 52, a bill which would decriminalize euthanasia with nearly identical definitions as the Belgian euthanasia law. Quebec government officials have stated that Bill 52 would not allow newborns with disabilities and people with dementia to die by euthanasia, yet.

Links to similar articles:
Should children and incompetent persons be euthanized in Belgium.
2012 Euthanasia deaths increase by 25% in Belgium.
Botched sex change operation victim euthanized in Belgium.

A healthy blind woman dies by euthanasia in the Netherlands

Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Daily Mail reported for the first time, an otherwise healthy blind woman was euthanized in the Netherlands.

The article reported that:

Dutch medics have killed a woman by lethal injection after she went blind – in Holland’s first case of euthanasia for a disability. 

The unnamed 70-year-old woman was deemed by two doctors to be ‘suffering unbearably’ as a result of her blindness and her wish to die was granted. 

She had previously tried to comment suicide ‘several times’, according to Trouw, a Dutch newspaper. 

The woman had been born with poor eyesight which had deteriorated into blindness as she entered old age. She had lived alone since her husband died.

Amy Hasbrouck, the leader of Tourjours Vivant - Not Dead Yet (TVNDY), is legally blind. The TVNDY website states that:

People with disabilities and chronic illnesses and seniors are the people most directly affected by assisted suicide, euthanasia, and other practices of the end of life.

DutchNews.nl reported that Health specialist Lia Bruin told Amsterdam-based Trouw that the case was ‘exceptional’.

'She was, for example, obsessed by cleanliness and could not stand being unable to see spots on her clothes,' Bruin said.

Peter Saunders

The Daily Mail article interviewed Dr. Peter Saunders, campaign director for the Care Not Killing Alliance who stated:

‘Euthanasia in the Netherlands is way out of control. ... 

‘What we are seeing in the Netherlands is more accurately termed 'incremental extension', the steady intentional escalation of numbers with a gradual widening of the categories of patients to be included.’  

‘The lessons are clear. Once you relax the law on euthanasia or assisted suicide steady extension will follow as night follows day.’

The Daily Mail article continued by stating:

Most euthanasia cases in Holland involve cancer patients but increasingly that have included dementia sufferers and even psychiatric patients. 

In 2005, however, the Groningen Protocol protected doctors from being prosecuted for the euthanasia of infants as long as they followed approved guidelines. 

Euthanasia is carried out by administering a strong sedative to put the patient in a coma, followed by a drug to stop breathing and cause death. 

Holland is following a pattern of incremental euthanasia deaths wherever the practice has been legalised. 

Last year, Belgium, where euthanasia came into force in 2003, saw a 25 per cent increase in the number of euthanasia deaths, leaping from 1,133 in 2011 to 1,432, a figure representing about two per cent of all deaths in the country. 

Last month Nancy Verhelst, 44, was legally killed by euthanasia after doctors botched her sex change operation, leaving her with physical deformities she felt made her look like a ‘monster’. 

The doctors who killed her - David Dufour and Wim Distelmans – were the same men who killed the Verbessem twins.  

This week the Belgian parliament will discuss proposals to extend euthanasia to children, dementia sufferers and people with long-term illnesses.

Links to similar articles:

• Botched sex change operation victim euthanized in Belgium.
• Belgian twins euthanized out of fear of blindness.
• Assisted suicide: A chilling prospect for people with disabilities.