Reject euthanasia and save us from Dr Death.

By Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, The Age (Australia) - May 9, 2014

Nicholas Tonti-Filippini lives with a life-threatening chronic condition.

Nicholas Tonti-Filippini

There are three ways in which euthanasia can become lawful: the parliament legislating to make an exception to the criminal law (the Oregon approach); the courts making lenient decisions that result in the public prosecutor deciding to accept medical guidelines for when no charges will be laid (the Netherlands approach); and changes to medical practice to permit fatal neglect – the ‘‘sedate and demand feed’’ approach that brings about a slow death by dehydration or starvation.

The recent decision by Rodney Syme to admit to having supplied the fatal dose that ended Steve Guest’s life indicates a shift from his pursuit of the first way in favour of the second. Presumably, the hope is that a police investigation will result in no charges being laid or, if they are laid, the courts will be reluctant to send an aged urologist to jail. Dr Syme is a far more wily advocate than Australia’s other ‘‘Dr Death’’, Philip Nitschke, who has found himself on the wrong end of the interest of the medical regulators.

Mr Guest’s decision to take his own life, with the help that Dr Syme now admits providing, was very public. He did his best to make his own unlawful manner of dying a euthanasia cause celebre. I engaged in discussion with Mr Guest during that time, and after his death I received a letter from his brothers that identified and implicated the medical assistance he received. At the time I sent copies of the letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to the police but received no acknowledgement from either. So I do not expect much to happen, now that Dr Syme has publicly admitted what was already known, that he was involved at the time and the likely provider of the fatal dose.

The Age’s recent reporting confuses the issue of supplying a fatal dose of barbiturate and the much more nuanced matter of prescribing pain relief that also shortens life. There is a world of difference between providing treatment of pain with foreseeable side effects that contribute to a shortening of life, and deciding to end someone’s life with an overdose of a sedative. In the former case, the modern-day issue would only be one of competence, because now there are alternative palliative care measures that avoid the need to give morphine at doses that suppress respiration. Drugs are given in combination and carefully titrated to ensure safety and effectiveness. Palliative care is more likely to lengthen life than to shorten it. People often live longer when their symptoms are relieved and they are well-supported.

Palliative care is also much more than just prescribing drugs. A multidisciplinary effort is involved, especially to deal with the effects of existential suffering. A person receiving palliative care is likely to have a community of carers available. Often that may involve trained volunteers, especially if they die at home with the support of a home hospice service. There are some brilliant initiatives, such as the biography project, in which trained volunteers record interviews with a person receiving palliative care and create a biography. It is a task that gives purpose and meaning and a great legacy for family and friends – the questions often revealing much about a life that was unknown to them.

Throughout the Steve Guest saga, my concern was that he was not receiving the care he could have received if palliative care professionals had been involved. It is a major concern that our Dr Deaths seem to be providing an alternative for chronically ill people that lacks the multidisciplinary support and the expertise needed to manage patient care well. The last person I would want to see at the end of my bed would be a lone Dr Death. I would much prefer to see a palliative care nurse and all that her competent presence implies fora team of expertise and support.

The euthanasia proposals are invariably discriminatory against chronically ill people like me. The proposals create a separate category of people, however we are described, whose lives are contingent upon our will to keep living. This is why most politicians have opposed specific legislation even while claiming to support euthanasia. The fact is that legalising the killing of a small category of people changes everything for us.

Living with a chronic illness means dependency upon a team of people who are actively engaged in supporting and sustaining us, and making life liveable. If euthanasia were lawful, my physician, and the nurses providing dialysis, would at least have to advise me of the option. That would utterly change the relationship. It would be like a football coach declaring that defeat is an option.

People with chronic illness struggle with depression. It is simply part of the advance of disease that loss of ability and increased symptoms are very challenging. Making the adjustment, at each stage of the way, needs all the support we can get. We do not need to have our legislators write us off. We do not need a law that would have family members and caregivers conscious of the other option, and the resultant feeling that we could relieve them of our burden.

What we need is better training of health care professionals in palliative care. No one should be tended by a doctor or nurse who thinks that an opiate or barbiturate is the only option. Competent care and the support of a multidisciplinary team should be a given, wherever a person lives. No one should be reliant on a Dr Death.

Nicholas Tonti-Filippini is associate dean of the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family, in East Melbourne.

Why would a euthanasia practitioner tour Auschwitz?

Link to the EPC - Europe Euthanasia in Belgium Petition.

This article was published by Mercatornet on May 15, 2014.

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick speaking
at the Council of Europe

By Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick and Dr Tom Mortier

The leading practitioner of euthanasia in Belgium, Dr Wim Distelmans, is organizing an instructional tour to Auschwitz, the Nazi extermination camp. In a travel brochure he describes Auschwitz as an ‘inspiring’ surrounding in which to ‘clarify confusion about euthanasia’.

In fact, Dr Distelmans’s tour does help to clarify matters: it shows that how little distance there is between Belgian euthanasia in 2014 and Nazi death camps in 1944.

Linking the right to die and the Nazis is a no-no in most circles. In fact, opponents are usually deemed to have lost the argument as soon as they mention the word “Nazi”. But Dr Distelmans’s breath-taking initiative could change that rule. To hold a seminar on euthanasia in an extermination camp where the idea of ‘lives not worth living’ took its most extreme form, is peculiar, to say the least.

Professor Tom Mortier

Dr Distelmans has often been in world headlines. He was filmed on television killing Nathan Verhelst who was suffering after failed sex reassignment surgery. He performed the world’s first double euthanasia when he killed twin brothers Marc and Eddy Verbessem, whom Belgium’s social services were not able to help. At least three times he has been involved in euthanasing people who are depressed.

Dr Distelmans has also chaired the Belgium Euthanasia Control and Evaluation Commission since euthanasia was legalised in 2000 – a commission which has never investigated a single death.

In a 'travel brochure' emailed to his contacts he describes the study tour as follows:

“Belgium is the only country in the world with a law that is concerned about a dignified end-of-life for everyone because of the patients rights law, the law on palliative care and the euthanasia law. In our country there is - unlike other countries of continental Europe – already 25 years of excellent professional palliative care and for more than 10 years we also have experience with transparent euthanasia requests and respect for patient rights. 

“In dealing with the problems of life, one is constantly confronted with existential pain, questions about the meaning of life, self-reflection, reliance, self-determination, finiteness and especially with (in)dignity. Therefore, it seemed a logical step to us to plan the next study trip to the place that is the eminent symbol of an unworthy end-of-life being Oświęcim, better known as Auschwitz, the extermination camp of the Nazis in Poland. This site is an inspiring venue for organizing a seminar and reflecting on these issues so that we can consider and clarify confusions.”

Dr Distelmans appears to have suffered a severe lapse of judgement. If, hypothetically, an Association of American State Prisons Executioners were to organise a holiday tour of Auschwitz with their wives and partners, staying at an expensive hotel and winding up an exhausting day at one of the best restaurants in Krakow (as Dr Distelmans and his fellow travellers will be doing), would there not be an uproar? What experience would they have gained there? Quicker ways of gassing prisoners? More efficient ways of administering lethal injections? Less painful ways of withdrawing nutrition and hydration? No doubt even their friends and admirers would question their eagerness to be “inspired” at a venue so steeped in horror.

It is widely acknowledged that the Nazi euthanasia program was a trial run for the death camps. It began in 1939 with the mercy killing of a severely disabled child. By the end of World War II, 5,000 sick and “idiot” children had received the blessing of a mercy killing. This experience was so fruitful that it grew into the T4 program for the mercy killing of chronically ill and disabled adults. There were so many of these that Hitler’s mercy killing technicians invented the gas chambers which proved so effective at Auschwitz.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) pushes suicide.

This article was originally published by Wesley Smith on his blog.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith, May 13, 2014. 

The media are society’s premier suicide pushers.

Oh sure, they decry suicides of teenagers and veterans. But they push suicide for the elderly, the disabled, the chronically and terminally ill–sometimes even, the mentally ill.

Canada’s CBC is the latest example. It interviewed an octogenarian about his plans to commit suicide before becoming too old. Then, after he died, they ran the profile.  From the story:

A Toronto man’s decision to end his life, simply because he felt it was time to die, has raised questions and concerns among family, friends and experts, some of whom say it could take the assisted suicide debate down a “slippery slope.” 

John Alan Lee, a former professor of sociology at the University of Toronto, died in December. He had carefully planned his own death for months and discussed his decision with a CBC crew.

Do you see how insidious this is? By going out with cameras and wide-eyed reporters to cover his suicide plan, the CBC actually validated Lee’s desire to die. Indeed, I would warrant it would make it harder to walk back.

How often have we seen this? Suicides are given high profile, even laudatory coverage. And the “experts” are quoted as saying we have to have the difficult conversations about permitting assisted suicide.

Then, once we do, the conversation is over forever because a new “right” has been created that can’t be taken away.

The CBC gives great respect to the idea that suicide can be “rational,” a dangerous meme in the mental health professions against which I have been warning for years:

Lee’s position reflects a broader philosophy known as “completed life” or “rational suicide.” The Dutch Parliament recently debated giving seniors over the age of 70 the right to euthanasia, regardless of illness.

"What Should We Do About Severely Impaired Babies".

A Reply to "What Should We Do About Severely Impaired Babies".

William Peace

By William Peace, May 11, 2014 (Published on his Bad Cripple blog).

In the Kingston Whig (May 9, 2014) I read an editorial by Udo Schuklenk who teaches bioethics at Queen’s University. Schuklenk’s, “What Should We do About Severely Impaired babies”? made me lose sleep last night. Link.

Utilitarianism has its its hooks into the health industrial complex, mainstream press, and contemporary popular culture. Access to health care is increasingly based on the lives we perceive as being worth living. This is a dangerous if not a deadly line of thought for vulnerable populations. I am one of those people whose life is not worth living in the estimation of many—paging Peter Singer at Princeton University and all those at the the University of Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics. So whose life lacks value? Severely disabled infants, elderly people with Alzheimer’s Disease, those with a profound cognitive deficits, vent dependent quadriplegics, and many other costly and undesirable human beings. This makes me shudder. It is sobering and distressing to know my existence is unwanted. It is frightening to know some, highly educated others, think my life has no value and would like to end my suffering.

It does not take a great deal of insight to establish whose life is worth living. All those that are productive and contribute to society in a very narrow sense have value: bipedal people with typical cognition who are employed and supposedly fully autonomous. What utilitarianism fosters is a business model of life or bottom line approach that is essentially heartless, unimaginative, and draconian. Compassion in health care? Forget it. All hail modern medical science and expensive high tech diagnostic tools. Of course the proviso is only those we value have access high priced high profit medical technology. Worse, we can use that technology to prevent expensive, oops, I mean severely disabled infants from existing. Schuklenk celebrates prenatal testing.

Every year a small number of fetuses are carried to term who have no reasonable chance of living a life worth living. They are so severely impaired that they will live a miserable, short life until they eventually expire. The good news is that, courtesy of prenatal screening, only few such births take place and the numbers are decreasing. We have some data from the Netherlands, where a few hundred out of about 200,000 newborns annually tend to fall into this category.

What Schuklenk is celebrating is a new form Eugenics. In stating this I just lost my bioethicists and neonatology readership. When I use the E word bioethicists and neonatologist shut down. These heath care professionals believe my views are offensive and unbalanced. Surely I must be a religious fundamentalist whose faith and adherence to religious doctrine clouds my thought. Worse, some neonatologists will furiously and assert “I am not Nazi” when asked probing ethical questions. There is no effort to look beyond the narrow confines of the institution where they ply their trade. This enables a scholar such as Schuklenk to wonder:

Euthanasia in Belgium - Please Sign our Petition

Link to the EPC - Europe Euthanasia in Belgium Petition.

More and more terrible evidence is emerging of what is really happening under the guise of Belgium’s euthanasia law. So we are calling on the Belgian Parliament to suspend its law permitting euthanasia and to conduct a full and transparent review of the practices carried out in its name.

If you agree that Belgium should suspend the practice of euthanasia until more information is available about what is really going on please sign our petition to the Belgian Parliament. 

Petition: 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of Europe calls on the Belgian Parliament to suspend its law permitting euthanasia and to conduct a full and transparent review of the practices carried out in its name.

Link to the EPC - Europe Euthanasia in Belgium Petition.

Background information

Belgium’s euthanasia law has now been extended to children of any age. Children under the age of eight barely have a concept of death and many teenagers especially if they are in a typically ‘rebellious’ frame of mind might not have a real grasp of the consequences of their actions.

Evidence now shows that older people with dementia are being euthanized in Belgium even though there can be no question of someone with dementia giving full and informed consent to their deaths.

There are other illegal practices happening in Belgium such as nurses performing euthanasia - and massive failure to report by doctors carrying out euthanasia (in 47% of cases). The leading euthanasia doctor in Belgium is also the president of the commission which is supposed to regulate the practice of euthanasia. This is a clear conflict of interest. He has had a complaint against him after he euthanized a depressed mother with no other illness.

Belgium saw a five-fold increase from 235 in 2003 (the first full year) to 1,432 in 2012.

The country is increasingly known not just for the steady annual rises in deaths, but also for the increasing proportion of deaths not prompted by terminal illness, including the notable 2013 cases of deaf-blind, transgender and depressed people being euthanized.

We are calling on the Belgian Parliament to suspend its law permitting euthanasia and to conduct a full and transparent review of the practices carried out in its name.

Link to the EPC - Europe Euthanasia in Belgium Petition.

Botched Execution and Euthanasia.

By Nic Steenhout, originally published by Mercatornet on May 4, 2014.

Nic Steenhout

It is false that “medical aid in dying” always provides a quiet death. No, euthanasia is a violent gesture, for the person killed as well as for the physician.

Those who wish to legalise “medical aid in dying” state that we must give an easier death for those at end of life. They say that euthanasia is the way to do it. However, there are clear indications that euthanasia often is a rather violent death.

Let’s take the recent cases of two death-row inmates, Clayton Lockett and Dennis McGuire, where the execution by lethal injection went extremely badly. Lockett took 26 minutes to die. Witnesses say that he was gasping for breath the whole time. McGuire died more than an hour after the injection, from a heart attack, after the injection ruptured a vein, botching the execution. Yet, it is the executioner’s job to conduct these procedures properly.

I hesitate to compare humans to animals, but there are plenty of stories of botched euthanasia for cats and dogs – as shown by a quick Google search. Yet, veterinarians do these procedures regularly.

But there are also documented cases of botched assisted suicides. David Reinard tells the story of a man who woke up three days after taking a lethal prescription, or the case of a man who had to “help” the dying person after they started vomiting and becoming very agitated.

Death by euthanasia, by “medical aid in dying”, by assisted suicide, or by lethal injection may be extremely violent for the dying person. But it is also violent for the physician that conducts the act. Marie de Hennezel, a French psychologist, psychotherapist and author eloquently speaks about it:

“As a psychologist, I have been for the past twenty years the confidante of many doctors and nurses having euthanized a patient. I can bear witness to the violence that this radical act represents: it is a source of prolonged nightmares and some, haunted by the last look of the patient to whom they have given death, are dragged into unending depressions. We have to become aware of the weight that this can represent for them”.

We must be conscious of the facts. Euthanasia does not guarantee a quiet, dignified and painless death. If we truly want to help people at end-of-life, we must improve access to palliative care.

Nicolas Steenhout is Executive Director at Vivre Dans La Dignité, in Québec.

Veterinary euthanasia drugs stolen.

An article in the Geelong Advertiser in Australia is reporting that veterinary euthanasia drugs were stolen from the home of a semi-retired veterinarian in Victoria Australia. The article reported:

Police said veterinarian drugs had been taken and would be fatal if digested. 

Owner Graham, whose surname has been withheld, said he returned home with his wife to find the front door wide open. 

The discovery left him feeling sick, he said. 

“They left the iPads and things behind but took a bit of jewellery and odd bits. The most concerning was euthanasia drugs which we use for putting down animals.”

It is evident from the report, that the purpose for the break and enter was to steel euthanasia drugs. This is one of many reports concerning stolen euthanasia drugs.

Veterinarians will need to increase the security for their euthanasia drugs, since several euthanasia movement leaders have been encouraging the use of veterinary euthanasia drugs.

Links to similar articles:
● Australian doctor publicly admits to assisting suicide.

● Nitschke is importing suicide kits into the United States.

● Dr Death continues to sell suicide over the internet.

● Dr Death continues to promote veterinary drugs for suicide.
● Hoarding death drugs.

● Legalizing euthanasia: There will be casualties.

Euthanasia is not healthcare, it is lethal, and it is not safe.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Quebec euthanasia bill needs to be assessed based on the experience in other jurisdictions.

By analyzing data from recent studies concerning Belgium and the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal, some concerning facts emerge.

 
1. One study found that 32% of the assisted deaths were done without explicit request.

2. Another study found that 47% of the assisted deaths in Belgium were unreported.

3. A third study found that nurses are euthanizing patients even though the Belgian law limits the act of euthanasia to doctors.

The first study concluded the assisted deaths done without explicit request were most often done in the hospital to patients who were over the age of 80 and who were incompetent to make decisions,

“fits the description of vulnerable patient group at risk of life-ending without request.”

The most recent data concerning the Netherlands euthanasia law indicated that the unreported assisted deaths increased from 20% in 2005 to 23% in 2010. Reported assisted deaths in the Netherlands has increased from 1923 in 2006 to 3859 in 2012. On March 1, 2012, six mobile euthanasia teams began operating in the Netherlands which will likely increase the number of assisted deaths for psychiatric reasons in the Netherlands.

Opposition to euthanasia is based on three main concerns.

1. No person or institution should have the power to cause the death of another person in society.

2. Giving power to one person, in law, to cause the death of another person, will be abused. In this circumstance the abuse results in death.

3. Discrimination exists towards identified groups of people or individuals. Legalizing euthanasia , for instance, threatens the lives of people with disabilities and the frail elderly.

Canadians need to focus their efforts on how we care for every citizen.

Euthanasia is not healthcare, it is lethal and it is not safe.

Declaration of Hope: Opposing assisted suicide.

Sign the Declaration of Hope.

We believe that legalizing assisted suicide is bad public policy and should be rejected by every State legislature.

Legalizing assisted suicide enables one citizen to be directly and intentionally involved with causing the suicide death of another citizen. America must not allow its citizens to be involved with causing the death of other Americans. We understand that the most tragic cases will dominate the public discussion, but the issues must be considered based on how it will affect society as a whole.

Assisted suicide is not a socially acceptable response to terminal or incurable illness or chronic conditions. Legalizing assisted suicide may result in some people feeling pressured and thereby considering themselves or their loved ones as ‘better-off-dead’. Some people will feel obliged to justify why they want to continue medical treatment. For many, including attending physicians, assisted suicide would become the unspoken, but ever present, question resulting in a subtle, negative change to the doctor-patient relationship. Will this result in a “duty to die”?

The government must not place the lives of citizens at risk. Legislators need to apply the precautionary principle: the higher the risk – the higher the burden of proof on those proposing legislation. The risk of abuse cannot be eliminated.

Assisted suicide poses a threat to the equality of persons. The lives of some in our community will be considered — “not worth living”. Among those at greatest risk are the elderly, the lonely, those living with disabilities, those experiencing chronic illness and those with limited access to good medical care. Laws that prohibit assisted suicide protect every Americans equally.

Older people are not a problem to be rid of — they’re a generation to be honored and cared for. Elder Abuse has become a significant problem in America. We cannot ignore the possibility that dependent elderly people may be coerced into assisted suicide. We cannot put older Americans at risk by creating new paths to elder abuse.

Legalizing assisted suicide is a recipe for abuse. So-called ‘safeguards’ are an illusion because they are unable to prevent the potential for coercion and abuse.

Every American should have access to quality pain control — no matter where they live. Pain control and palliative medicine should be given a higher priority in medical training so that every American can benefit.

Being involved in one’s health care plan and making informed choices are vitally important to a patient’s sense of well-being. Assisted suicide would weaken the autonomy of patients, reducing their choices about their care and symptom management. Assisted suicide could be increasingly adopted as the easier option to the exclusion of genuine patient centered care.

We firmly oppose assisted suicide legislation. 

Sign the Declaration of Hope.

* Declaration of Hope - Canada.

Great Success: Disability Rights Leadership Institute on Bioethics.

Diane Coleman

By Diane Coleman, the President of Not Dead Yet. 

This article was published on May 2 on the Not Dead Yet blog.

Months of work came to fruition on April 25 – 26, 2014 at the Crystal City Marriott in Arlington, VA. Conference planning experts told us to expect a 10% no show rate, but out of our final count of 68 who signed up to attend (we had initially expected about 50), only 3 missed it. That’s a clue about the amazing level of participation we had for the first ever Disability Rights Leadership Institute on Bioethics (DRLIB).

Before talking about the program, I first want to thank our sponsors: National Disability Leadership Alliance, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, National Council on Independent Living and, of course, Not Dead Yet.

All of DRLIB’s sponsors and participants also want to thank our generous supporters: Aging With Dignity, Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living, Yoshiko Dart, Gail Ludwig and Clarissa Kripke, Michigan Disability Rights Coalition, Montanans Against Assisted Suicide, Patients’ Rights Action Fund and United Spinal.

I also want to thank the Center for Disability Rights for designing and printing our conference programs and sending their extraordinary executive administrative assistant Linda Taylor to manage our check in desk, and TRIPIL’s Kathleen Kleinmann, DREDF’s Rhonda Neuhaus and disability bioethicist Joe Stramondo for volunteering there too.

Friday was the focus for NDY and DREDF, addressing issues around assisted suicide and withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. I was the first presenter, on the latter subject, starting out with a dilemma:

I really feel that we need a lively opening and those of you who know me realize, as I do, that I’m a bit too wonky for that. Throughout the Institute I’ll be turning to so many of you for help, so I want to start off with a brilliant piece by Norm Kunc.

Norm Kunc

Norm was there, and his “Euthanasia Blues” provided a rollicking start.

My wonky part was described this way in the program: Medical discrimination against people with disabilities, sometimes resulting in death through the nonconsensual withholding of life sustaining treatment, has been a longstanding and increasing concern among disability advocates, especially under the threat of healthcare budget cuts and rationing. Over the last two decades, health care decisions laws have been amended to increase the likelihood that people will sign advance directives and POLST forms refusing life sustaining treatment, and that surrogate decision makers will refuse treatment on behalf of relatives without advance directives. There are also concerns about organ transplant professionals denying transplant eligibility based on disability, as well as pushing for withdrawal of life support from disabled people in order to harvest their organs for others. Most states have “futile care” laws and policies allowing physicians to withhold life-sustaining treatment over the expressed objection of the individual or their surrogate. Evidence of passive euthanasia in violation of the civil rights of people with disabilities, such as that described in the National Disability Rights Network report, “Devaluing People with Disabilities: Medical Procedures that Violate Civil Rights” (May 2012), will be explored, as well as potential avenues for addressing these violations.

Has the End-of-Life been Hijacked?

By Bill Peace and published on his "Bad Cripple" blog.

Bill Peace

I regularly find myself puzzled by advocates for assisted suicide. There is a fervor for death I find unsettling. That fervor is palatable in some people. Here I think of Thaddeus Pope, a legal scholar I respect but a man I do not understand. Why I wonder do advocates for assisted suicide get so excited when they engage me and others who are opposed to assisted suicide? I also wonder what do they really think of me? Am I respected as a scholar and activist? I simply do not know. In fact I sometimes feel like a speed bump in the road--a warning to slow down that can and is often ignored. What I do know is that far too many people in this country die badly. Alone, often scared, and almost always in a hospital. This is not good. This is the common ground advocates and opponents share--we want the end of life to be as humane as possible. We are profoundly different in the way we approach this fundamental dilemma.

As I drove up to Syracuse early this morning I was thinking about end of life issues and how it feels nearly impossible to change other people minds. I find this frustrating in the extreme. I also feel there is a core problem I am missing. So as I pumped gas into my car I was dumbstruck to read an article in the Vancouver Sun. The Canadians I feel have a more nuanced approach to end of life care. I could be wrong but long ago a Canadian Border Guard told me "Unlike you Americans we still value dissent". As I read "Death with Dignity Isn't About Euthanasia, Says Palliative Care Expert". See: In this article Harvey Chochinov. Here is an excerpt from an otherwise mundane article:

While palliative care — in which patients are kept comfortable, clean and pain free — is a growing part of the public conversation about death, Chochinov says Canada lacks national guidelines for the humane treatment of a dying person.

Instead, he says, the very notion of dying with dignity has been “hijacked” by the right-to-die movement.

“I think we’re going entirely in the wrong direction by saying the way to deal with our inadequacies in end-of-life care is by a euthanasia policy. I think we need to do something much more constructive, such as giving doctors good training in pain management.” 

Even where doctor-assisted death is legal, a small fraction of the population requests it, he notes.

The right to die movement? When death become a right? We are all going to die. Death is a biological certainty. Death is not a right but part of the life cycle. Like Chochinov I believe we need to have a vibrant national debate about how we deal with the end of life. I agree we need to foster a constructive discussion. Jack Kevorkian put this discussion on the front page of every newspaper in the nation in the 1990s. Kevorkian, unknown to many young college students, was a polarizing figure--a ghoul really. He was a polarizing influence. Who I wonder can bridge the gap between people such as myself who oppose assisted suicide and those that fiercely advocate for it in the form of state laws and the push for VSED as a viable final solution. Is it even possible to build a bridge between two mutually antagonistic groups? When I read the rhetoric on both sides I think any sort of common ground will never be found. I hope I am wrong. I am however convinced of one thing: framing end of life, death itself, as a right and forming a right to die movement is inherently wrong. In short, I second Chochinov's call for better medical training and pain management and more--more as in teaching physicians to be kind and compassionate to the patients they treat who are approaching the end of their life or are mere hours from death. This is hard work. Emotional labor too few physicians are willing to engage in. Now that is subject worthy of sinking our collective teeth into.

Canadian seniors, a social isolation epidemic.

By Derek Miedema - Researcher, IMFC

It's likely we all know someone like Mrs. Carpenter (not her real name). She is an elderly widow. She lives in rural Eastern Ontario, and her family all lives in the United States. She has no car and no nearby public transit, and multiple medical problems. The program Meals on Wheels delivers meals several days a week, but not on weekends. While the work of such agencies is admirable and important, the fact remains that Mrs. Carpenter is still socially isolated. In academic terms, that means she suffers with reduced social networks and a lack of social contact.

Unfortunately, Mrs. Carpenter's situation is not unique. A 2012 Statistics Canada study found that 20% of seniors did not participate in weekly or even monthly activities. This is, or ought to be, a glaring cause for concern.

How it affects our seniors

Social isolation is not the sole domain of the elderly, but it is uniquely suited to old age. A 2013 study by Andrew Steptoe at University College, London (U.K.) found that financial and mobility limitations, along with the death of friends and family, contributed to the decrease of the number of social contacts among seniors. Statistics Canada predicts that between 2015 and 2021, the number of Canadians aged 65 and over will outnumber those 14 and under. That means fewer children and grandchildren to visit, let alone to help take care of aging loved ones.

There are serious health consequences to social isolation among the elderly, including earlier death. Indeed, Mr. Steptoe found that social isolation was associated with long-standing illnesses such as chronic lung disease, arthritis, impaired mobility and "depressive symptoms." As well, a 2012 study by professors at the University of California found that loneliness leads to a decline in the ability to carry out activities of daily living, as well as difficulty in achieving everyday tasks such as reaching for items in upper cupboards and stair climbing. In extreme cases, social isolation can also be deadly. A 2010 review of studies of social isolation concluded that social isolation is as strong a factor in early death as alcohol consumption and smoking more than 15 cigarettes a day.

If we want our aging loved ones to live longer, healthier lives, then living in community with them is more of a necessity than many of us might have realized. The good news is that there are relatively simple ways to bring seniors into that community.

Death with dignity isn't about euthanasia.

Dr Harvey Chochinov

By Erin Ellis - Vancouver Sun - May 2, 2014

Less than a third of the 250,000 Canadians who die each year have access to good palliative care, says Dr. Harvey Chochinov, a Winnipeg-based researcher on end-of-life treatment.

“There have been several special Senate reports on death and dying in Canada and the best estimates we have are that somewhere between 15 and 30 per cent of Canadians near the end of life will have access to quality, comprehensive palliative care, which is a rather shocking disclosure,” Chochinov said in a telephone interview Friday.

While palliative care — in which patients are kept comfortable, clean and pain free — is a growing part of the public conversation about death, Chochinov says Canada lacks national guidelines for the humane treatment of a dying person.

Instead, he says, the very notion of dying with dignity has been “hijacked” by the right-to-die movement.

“I think we’re going entirely in the wrong direction by saying the way to deal with our inadequacies in end-of-life care is by a euthanasia policy. I think we need to do something much more constructive, such as giving doctors good training in pain management.”

Even where doctor-assisted death is legal, a small fraction of the population requests it, he notes.

Dr. Harvey Chochinov is a Winnipeg-based psychiatrist and researcher who holds the Canada Research Chair in Palliative Care.

Australian doctor publicly admits to assisting suicide.

This article was written by Xavier Symons and published on BioEdge on May 2, 2014.

By Xavier Symons

Urologist and Dying with Dignity Victoria vice-president Dr. Robert Syme has publicly admitted to giving a veterinary euthanasia drug to a man dying from cancer.

Dr. Syme said that in 2005 he gave 86-year-old Steve Guest the lethal drug, judging that “it would give him the best possible palliation of his psychological existential suffering.” Mr. Guest died two weeks later from an overdose of the drug.

Dr. Syme dared authorities to arrest him, believing that prosecution may result in a legal precedent salutary to the pro-euthanasia cause: 

Paul Russell

“a lot of these things, it seems, will only be changed in a court decision, so bring it on.”

Dr. Syme’s actions parallel the various public confessions to assisting in suicide made by Dr. Jack Kevorkian in the 1990s.

Paul Russell – executive director of Hope: Preventing Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide – said that various aspects of the case could be scrutinized, but in particular questioned Dr. Syme’s expertise in the psychology of palliative care: ‘‘People can appear to be quite rational when perhaps they are not,’’ he said.

The 20 most popular articles on euthanasia and assisted suicide

Recent update: 20 most popular articles on euthanasia and assisted suicide.

1. Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Recipe for Elder Abuse and the Illusion of Personal Choice. - February 17, 2011.

2. Euthanasia is out-of-control in the Netherlands – September 25, 2012.

3. Declaration of Hope – January 17, 2013.

4. Belgian twins euthanized out of fear of blindness – January 14, 2013.

5. Nitschke continues to promote Nembutal sales over the internet – June 22, 2010.

6. 5 reasons why people devalue the elderly – May 25, 2010.

7. Trisomy 18 is not a Death Sentence. The story of Lilliana Dennis – May 29, 2012.

8. Dr Phil show: Woman wants to euthanize her adult children with disabilities – April 16, 2012.

9. Hassan Rasouli to be transferred from Sunnybrook hospital - January 6, 2014.

10. Québec's euthanasia Bill 52 is lethal - December 12, 2013.

11. Belgium euthanasia study finds that nearly half of all euthanasia deaths are not reported  – December 4, 2010.

12. Depressed Belgian woman dies by Euthanasia – February 6, 2013.

13. Elder abuse caught on video, incident is not isolated - May 22, 2013.

14. Botched sex-change operation victim euthanized in Belgium – October 1, 2013.

15. Suicide/Asphyxiation Exit Kit company raided by FBI – May 26, 2011.

16. Oregon Suicide rate soars after legalizing assisted suicide - September 12, 2010.

17. Bill to outlaw euthanasia by dehydration passed by Italy’s lower house. – July 13, 2011.

18. Oregon 2012 Assisted Suicide statistics - January 24, 2013.

19. Mild stroke led to mother’s forced death by dehydration – September 27, 2011.

20. Euthanasia Poll: What do the people of Quebec really want – November 22, 2010.

Other prominent articles:

• The Trouble with Euthanasia - April 7, 2014. 
• Euthanasia Prevention Coalition welcomes an open and honest debate on euthanasia and assisted suicide - March 26, 2014.
• Belgian woman with Anorexia Nervosa dies by euthanasia – February 10, 2013.
• Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide – December 4, 2012