Assisted suicide: doctors should think twice before signing on

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Paul McHugh

Dr Paul McHugh, wrote a response to the recent push by the assisted suicide lobby to legalize assisted suicide, in an article that was published in the Wall Street Journal.

McHugh, a former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, points out that legalizing assisted suicide has gained some momentum, that previous momentum was crushed.

With backing from financier George Soros —a longtime supporter of “right to die” legislation—proponents are intent on expanding beyond Oregon, Vermont and Washington the roster of states where the practice is legal. Legislation to allow assisted suicide is moving through New Jersey’s statehouse, last month a New York legislator vowed to introduce a similar bill, and in California state Sens. Bill Monning and Lois Wolk are working to legalize the practice. 

... often in fights for good ideas, the bad ones—even when crushingly defeated, as when Michigan sent Kevorkian to prison in 1999—sidle back into the ring and you have to thrash them again.

McHugh points out that historically, assisted suicide has been pushed back:

Since ancient Greece physicians have been tempted to help desperate patients kill themselves, and many of those Greek doctors must have done so. But even then the best rejected such actions as unworthy and, as the Hippocratic Oath insists, contrary to the physician’s purpose of “benefiting the sick.” For reasons not too different, doctors traditionally refuse to participate in capital punishment; and, when they are inducted into military service, do not bear arms. 

Also, as Ian Dowbiggin showed in “A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America” (2003), physician-assisted suicide was periodically championed in the 20th century yet rejected time after time by American voters when its practical harms were comprehended. As recently as 2012, Massachusetts voters defeated an initiative to legalize assisted suicide.

McHugh then offers three reasons for opposing assisted suicide:

First: Once doctors agree to assist a person’s suicide, ultimately they find it difficult to reject anyone who seeks their services. The killing of patients by doctors spreads to encompass many treatable but mentally troubled individuals, as seen today in the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland. 

Second: When a “right to die” becomes settled law, soon the right translates into a duty. That was the message sent by Oregon, which legalized assisted suicide in 1994, when the state-sponsored health plan in 2008 denied recommended but costly cancer treatments and offered instead to pay for less-expensive suicide drugs. 

These intractable, recurrent drawbacks are but one side of the problematic transaction involved with assisted suicide. The other, more telling side is the way assisting in patients’ suicides hollows out the heart of the medical profession.

Assisted Suicide lobby group loses its charitable status

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex Schadenberg

The leading assisted suicide lobby group in Canada, has lost its charitable status.

In Canada, charities are allowed to allot 10% of their financial and time resources to political activities. The charities act defines political activity as lobbying and working to change Canadian law. 

The Canadian Press falsely inferred that Dying With Dignity lost its charitable status based on its opposition to government policies. Revenue Canada defines political activity, not based on whether they advocate for a particular political point of view, but rather because they are actively lobbying government for political change.

The Ottawa Citizen report appears more balanced:

Isn't assisted suicide really suicide?

By Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Nick Clegg

Yesterday Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister in the UK, announced at a mental health conference, the government's intention to reduce suicide to zero by working in cooperation with every part of the National Health Service and other agencies.

According to The Telegraph news, Clegg is modeling this suicide prevention program on the successful program that was implemented in Detroit Michigan. The article stated:

... every suicide is preventable if NHS trusts provide better care for people suffering from depression and other serious illnesses. 

The “zero suicides” target can be met through simple measures, such as keeping in touch with patients who have been discharged from mental health wards and creating a plan so that patients and their friends know whom to contact if they are placing themselves in danger. 

Police and transport agencies will be called on to examine whether safety measures can be put in place in “hot zones” where high numbers of suicides occur, such as shopping centres or bridges. 

The plans have been inspired by a mental health programme in Detroit, US, where a “zero suicide” commitment resulted in no-one in the care of state depression services taking their lives in two years.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and similar organizations encourages the UK government to implement a goal of ending suicide. We recognize that suicide is 100% preventable.

At the same time the British House of Lords continued their debate on Lord Falconer's assisted dying bill, a bill that proposes to legalize assisted suicide in the UK.

Kevin Yuill

In response to the assisted suicide debate, Dr Kevin Yuill asks the question - isn’t assisted dying really suicide? Yuill states in his article:

Yet the campaign against suicide throws up questions about assisted dying, which was debated in the House of Lords last week. Here we find another example of the “massive taboo” that people are scared to talk about. That is: isn’t assisted dying really suicide? How can we wage a war against suicide for some whilst encouraging it as a legitimate choice for others? ... it is difficult to argue that what is being proposed is not essentially suicide. 

Gov Christie will not sign New Jersey assisted suicide bill

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair – Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Gov. Chris Christie

During his monthly appearance on New Jersey 101.5’s “Ask the Governor” show on Thursday night, Governor Christie was asked by a female caller to rethink his opposition to physician assisted suicide, NJ.com reported.

Gov. Christie replied that he will consider it, but he is unlikely to sign it into law. He said:

"I understand that these are very, very difficult issues and I promise you that I will, if there’s any legislation that comes to my desk from the Legislature, that I will look at it and carefully consider it because of how important the issue is to so many people across the state." 

"But I also don’t want to mislead you," the governor said. "I have real concerns about this and it goes in line with my general philosophy, which is whether we’re talking about a drug-addicted teenager, whether we’re talking about homeless adults, whether we’re talking about someone suffering from mental illness, or someone suffering from physical illness, all life is precious and is a gift from God, and no life is disposable. That belief of mine. . .informs my policies in a lot of deferent ways, and always has."

"And so, we’ll certainly take a look at it, but I don’t want to give you false encouragement either — I have grave concerns about it," he added.

To encourage Gov. Christie to veto New Jersey assisted suicide bill sign our petition by clicking on the link below:

Sign the petition urging New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to veto the assisted suicide bill

More Information:

Dutch euthanasia clinic was 'careless' in the death of woman with tinnitus.

By Alex Schadenberg

International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Levenseindekliniek euthanasia clinic, that is operated by the Dutch euthanasia lobby, has been reprimanded for a third time in the past year.

The NL Times reported that the euthanasia clinic was reprimanded in the euthanasia death of a woman with tinnitus (ear ringing). The Review Committee declared that the doctors were "careless."

According to the NL Times:

In the opinion of the review committee “the patient did not seem to be out of treatment options”. The physician of the Levenseindekliniek did too little research into alternative treatments to alleviate Olthuis’ suffering and “hence the hopelessness of suffering was not sufficiently established”. 

According to the committee, a more extensive psychiatric examination also should have been done.

This is the third time the Levenseindekliniek euthanasia clinic has been reprimanded this year. In April the Review Committee found that the mental competence of a depressed elderly woman should have been evaluated by a psychiatrist and in August the Review Committee found that the doctor did not substantiate the unbearable suffering of the patient.

I applaud the Review Committee for its attempt to control the euthanasia law, but due to the - after the death - reporting system in the Netherlands, these people are already dead.

It is even more concerning that since the introduction of the euthanasia law in 2002, there has never been a doctor prosecuted for abusing the law.

Recent statistics from the Netherlands indicate:

• there 4829 assisted deaths in 2013 - a 15% increase from 2012,
• there were 42 assisted deaths of people with psychiatric problems and 97 assisted deaths of people with dementia,
• there are about 300 assisted deaths without request each year.
• there are about 23% of all assisted deaths that are not reported to the Review Committee.

The term assisted deaths refers to either euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Links to more information:

• Psychiatric euthanasia deaths tripled in the Netherlands.
• Theo Boer: Dutch euthanasia law needs reform.
• What happened when euthanasia became legal. The Netherlands experience.
• Dutch euthanasia clinic lethally injects woman who didn't want to live in a nursing home.
• Netherlands 2013 euthanasia report.

Experts say: Scotland's assisted suicide bill will undermine suicide prevention efforts.

By Alex Schadenberg

International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Herald newspaper in Scotland is reporting that experts are warning that the assisted suicide bill that is being debated in the Scottish parliament would undermine efforts to prevent suicide.

The Herald reported that:

A law that would legalise assisted suicide is facing growing opposition, as academics and ethicists raised fresh concerns that it would lead to the elderly being put under pressure to kill themselves. 

Figures within the medical profession have also raised new concerns that if the Bill currently making its way through Holyrood passes, it would undermine efforts to reduce suicides generally and open the door to euthanasia.

The article continued by quoting from the experts who submissions to the Scottish Health Committee on the assisted dying bill:

J Kenyon Mason Institute

The J Kenyon Mason Institute for Medicine, Life Sciences and Law, based at the University of Edinburgh, said in its submission that there were insufficient safeguards to protect patients "from coercion or undue influence in making decisions". 

... Robert Preston, director of Living and Dying Well, a research body established in 2010 to examine the evidence surrounding the end-of-life debate, claimed there was "no effective safeguarding system to protect the public and especially its most vulnerable members". 

He went on to argue that there are a number of important weaknesses in the Bill, including the lack of the need for a psychiatric assessment before an assisted suicide could take place. 

Mr Preston added: "In these days when home visits are not as common as was once the case, doctors often know little of their patients' lives beyond the consulting room. Yet the Bill is asking them to make life or death decisions without any objective assessment regime to guide them."

The Scottish Council on Human Bioethics stated:

labelled the proposals "dangerous" and said elderly and other vulnerable people may feel it is their "duty to die" as they are a burden or because their care was eating up family members' inheritance.

The Scottish government opposes the assisted dying bill but Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) will be given a free vote on the bill.

The previous assisted dying bill was sponsored by Margo MacDonald (MSP), that would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Scotland was overwhelmingly defeated on Dec. 1, 2010 by a vote of 85 to 16.

The current assisted dying bill was introduced by Margo MacDonald (November 2013). After she died it was picked up by Patrick Harvie (MSP).

Links to more information:

• Scotland may kill assisted suicide bill in committee.
• Scotland assisted suicide bill discriminates against people with disabilities.
• Scotland assisted suicide plan 'unethical and uncontrollable'.
• British Medical Association rejects Scottish assisted suicide bill.
• Dr Stephen Hutchinson: Assisted suicide is not safe.

Montero: Euthanasia in Belgium has expanded considerably

This article was originally published on the Hope Australia website on January 16, 2015.

“When euthanasia was authorized twelve years ago in Belgium, it was presented as an ethical transgression, an exception reserved for extreme situations. Twelve years later, its scope has expanded considerably.” Montero.

Etienne Montero

Etienne Montero, Dean of the Faculty of Law of Namur was interviewed by Violante De Montclos for the French journal Le Point recently.

This is the translated text of the interview:

Montclos: For the first time, the law authorizing euthanasia in Belgium is being criticized. We talked with Etienne Montero about the case of Van Den Bleeken, of this "death penalty in reverse"...

Montero: The death of Frank Van Den Bleeken has not occurred, but after him, 15 other detainees have already made a request for lethal injection. It has been forgotten that in September 2012, a 48 year old psychiatric inmate was indeed euthanized ... Our country has been condemned 14 times by the European Court of Human Rights because we continue to hold such prisoners under conditions that do not correspond to their state of psychiatric patients judged responsible for their actions. This lack of care, being accepted as a reason for euthanasia, reveal how the barriers posed in 2002 have been jumped one after the other.

Montclos: Has the number of euthanasia deaths increased?

Montero: Exponentially, yes. In twelve years, it went from 199 to 1,454 deaths per year. And I speak here about the referrals (reports) from doctors to the Board of Control, as the authorities admit they have no way to assess the number of actually practiced euthanasia deaths, probably much more important. Furthermore, in November 2014, euthanasia was legally open to minors, regardless of their age ...

Montclos: How is the legality of lethal injections controlled?

Montero: By a commission that scrutinizes the files forwarded by the doctors. But it is an a posteriori review, that is to say, once people have already died, and the Commission only has at its disposal the information that the doctor is willing to provide. Everything is biased. Moreover, in twelve years, no records were sent to court ...

Assisted Suicide: “No amount of safeguarding will ever be enough”

The following article was published on the blog of the disability rights group Scope in the UK.

Juliet Marlow

Juliet Marlow, a disability rights campaigner and member of Not Dead Yet UK, explains why she is against legalising assisted suicide.

"I want support to live, not to die!"

By Juliet Marlow

Lord Falconer’s Private Member’s Bill proposing the legalisation of doctor-assisted suicide (AS) for those with six months or less to live will receive its third reading in the House of Lords today, Friday 16 January.

This isn’t the first time the matter has been debated. Every few years somebody will make the proposal only for it to be nervously put aside. But this time feels different. Despite its controversial nature it seems the idea has somehow caught public imagination and there is a very real chance that this time it could become law.

My name is Juliet. I’m 44, married, a PhD student and freelance writer. I sing in a rock/pop band and mostly love my life. I have been disabled since I was four; I use a wheelchair and rely on PAs to assist me with pretty much everything. I am also passionately opposed to the legalisation of AS.

On the surface, AS doesn’t look that unreasonable. People know that sick and disabled people have had to fight hard for control of our own lives so naturally they assume we want to control our deaths too.

Not Dead Yet

I am proud to belong to the anti-AS campaign group Not Dead Yet UK. Most of us have personal experience of disability and our reasons for opposing the Bill will vary. But our core arguments are that it is unnecessary and unsafe. No amount of safeguarding will ever be enough to protect all vulnerable people, all the time. And that is a terrifying thought for those of us who face illness and death every day.

Sympathy and fear are the pro-AS lobby’s weapons of choice. Sympathy is hard to fight because some of their campaigners genuinely want to try and prevent future suffering. Nevertheless, I respectfully suggest they have missed the point – it is society that robs people of a ‘good death’, not illness. With proper pain medication and decent patient-centred palliative care, a ‘good death’ can be had. It’s never easy but it can be effectively managed to prevent unnecessary suffering.

Fear is much harder to counteract. People will die in pain and distress unless the authorities ensure all terminally ill people get the palliative support they need. It is no coincidence that at a time of savage public funding cuts, the AS question has raised its ugly head again. It is because the misguided belief that society will always take care of its most vulnerable citizens has been tarnished, exposed as a lie.

Life not death

Our solution is not to control when and how we die, but to focus on life rather than death. We choose to campaign, protest and fight until the authorities introduce a cast-iron, needs-led end-of-life service that allows each of us to live to our natural end without pain and imagined ‘loss of dignity’.

The suggestion that dignity is lost through illness and can only be reclaimed by controlling the manner of your death is not only ignorant, but insulting to disabled people who have fought to build a meaningful life. If there is any loss of dignity then it is inflicted; it is not a natural state that can be avoided by dying early. I want support to live, not to die!

Disability rights leader opposes assisted suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

"No safeguards have ever been enacted or even proposed that can prevent an outcome that can never be undone."

Yesterday, the Jewish Weekly news published an interview with Marilyn Golden, the Senior Policy Analyst with the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF).

Marilyn Golden

Golden comments on DREDF, disability rights and assisted suicide.

What is DREDF

DREDF is a foremost national law and policy center on disability civil rights. We work on policy such as the Americans with Disabilities Act — which I had the great honor of participating in the development of — and other training, technical assistance and disability rights litigation. I’ve been here since 1988.

You were honored this year by the White House as a transportation “Champion of Change.” What did you do specifically to earn that award? Did you go to the White House?

... I have spent a number of years pushing the envelope to have stronger civil rights protections in transportation for people with disabilities, whether we’re talking about bus, train, ADA paratransit or privately funded transportation. I wrote a number of guides [that] brought together all the information [and] emphasized the rights of people with disabilities. The ceremony was in the old executive office, near the White House, with the secretary of transportation conducting it.

With DREDF, you are also a strong voice against physician-assisted suicide. Why do you oppose it?

Because of direct threats to the disability community, but also because it’s a danger to everyone. People often think, “This is the right position for a liberal to take.” But it turns out that where assisted suicide is legal, some people will lose their lives without their consent through mistakes and abuse. No safeguards have ever been enacted or even proposed that can prevent an outcome that can never be undone. 

People often support it because they’re concerned about end of life pain, but, in fact, anybody dying in pain can avail themselves of something that’s already legal: palliative sedation. 

The disability community is very much at risk — as our lives are not deemed to be as valuable as others — but we’re not alone in the risk. There’s also significant risk of elder abuse. An heir or an abusive caregiver can steer the person toward assisted suicide, pick up the lethal dose and, in the end, even administer it to them because no witness is required at the death.

Assisted suicide articles by Marilyn Golden:

If assisted dying is a medical treatment, then all are entitled to it – including convicted murderers.

This article was published by HOPE Australia on January 15, 2015.

By Paul Russell - The Director of Hope Australia

Kevin Yuill

Kevin Yuill in an article published in Spiked, reflects on the situation of the Belgian prisoner, Frank Van Den Bleeken. Van Den Bleeken was granted his requeswt for euthanasia only to have it cancelled days before it was to be carried out.

Yuill observes the hypocrisy of some in the British commentariat:

“British commentators were mainly aghast at what they saw as the reintroduction of the death penalty. Some objected to Van Den Bleeken’s death on the basis that he, as a prisoner, should not determine his own sentence. Others, such as barrister and ethicist Daniel Sokol, felt that Van Den Bleeken’s death would not be a voluntary act because he had been denied psychiatric treatment. Sokol also argued that ‘[a]llowing a prisoner, who is not terminally ill, to die by euthanasia has a whiff of the death penalty’. In other words, the same people who support Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill in the UK, as well as others who support right-to-die laws in the US, shuddered at the thought of granting the right to die to a prisoner.”

Frank Van Den Bleeken

However, if euthanasia is ‘medical treatment’ as it is often defined, Van Den Bleeken should rightfully be allowed access:

“Indeed, every country and state where voluntary death of one sort or another is legal allows it only as a medical procedure – with the exception of Switzerland, where it is legal for anyone with good motives to assist a suicide. As the UK organisation Health Professionals for Assisted Dying (HPAD) notes: ‘Assisted dying should be just one of many options at the end of life… Those wanting an assisted death should be supported by their healthcare professionals to die.’ 

“Moreover, the criteria for who qualifies for an assisted death in Belgium is medically defined, as it is elsewhere, and is overseen and agreed by doctors. Even in Switzerland’s infamous Dignitas clinic, operations are overseen by a doctor and those who use the services are referred to as patients.”

Media Advisory: Disability Advocates Prepared to Oppose Flurry of State Assisted Suicide Bills Being Introduced in 2015

“If these bills pass, some people’s lives will be ended without their consent, through mistakes and abuse,”

Rochester, NY (PRWEB) January 15, 2015

Disability rights advocates are preparing to work in broad coalition with medical and other groups that oppose legalization of assisted suicide, as proponents announce plans to introduce bills in several states in the wake of Brittany Maynard’s tragic death. Representatives of Not Dead Yet, the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund and Second Thoughts are available for interviews.

Marilyn Golden

... Disability advocates are deeply sympathetic to all people with a terminal illness, facing the difficulties that lie ahead. Legalization of assisted suicide can look acceptable and safe when the focus is solely on one individual. However, a closer examination of the issue reveals the immense harm legalization poses to vulnerable people, the elderly and society as a whole.

“If these bills pass, some people’s lives will be ended without their consent, through mistakes and abuse,” said Marilyn Golden, senior policy analyst with the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund. “No safeguards have ever been enacted or proposed that can prevent this outcome, which can never be undone.”

Assisted suicide legislation was defeated last year in New Hampshire, Connecticut and Massachusetts by a broad coalition of disability rights organizations, medical associations and professionals, palliative care specialists, hospice workers and right to life groups. Similar coalitions are forming in many states in 2015 to oppose assisted suicide bills.

The following individuals are disability rights advocates who are experts and active on the issue of assisted suicide and able to speak on the record.

Marilyn Golden
Senior Policy Analyst
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF)
Berkeley, CA
(510) 703-0696

John B. Kelly
Director
Second Thoughts
Boston, MA
(617) 536-5140

Diane Coleman
President/CEO
Not Dead Yet
Rochester, NY
(708) 420-0539

More information:

Assisted suicide makes a mockery of us as guardians of justice and compassion

The Herald Newspaper in Scotland published this commentary on January 13, 2015.

In the debate on assisted suicide, we are all ultimately on the same side: we all want to limit suffering.

Compassion motivates all those who are genuinely interested in the debate. There is all the difference, however, between limiting suffering and ending life.

Committed supporters of assisted suicide have to as ask themselves two fundamental questions. First, how much risk to the vulnerable are they prepared to accept in order to facilitate suicide by the invulnerable? Secondly, where to draw the line in determining what suffering "qualifies" for assisted suicide?

No safeguard can ever be 100 per cent effective. As well as the clear abuses, there would also be the inevitable subtle pressures on those whose illness or condition met the criteria. On a recent BBC Radio 5 Live phone-in, Michael, who has motor neurone disease, explained how he is asked several times a week whether he would consider assisted suicide.

He said: "It makes one feel like I should be contemplating it for sake of the health service or my family watching what I'm going through. And I'm afraid that it will extend into the social conscience that people almost expect assisted dying."

There is a real danger of this societal pressure subtly eroding free choice from within. And this is something that no safeguard could ever protect against. Legalising an action normalises it so that it often becomes expected.

Psychiatric euthanasia deaths tripled in the Netherlands.

By Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

This Friday, January 16, the British House of Lords will resume its debate on the assisted dying bill. Today, the Daily Mail published an extensive article on the euthanasia practice in the Netherlands.

The article focuses on the Netherlands euthanasia statistics and recent trends including the fact that psychiatric euthanasia tripled in the Netherlands in 2013. The article states:

The latest official figures also revealed a 15 per cent surge in the number of euthanasia deaths from 4,188 cases in 2012 to 4,829 cases last year. 

The incremental rise is consistent with a 13 per cent increase in 2012, an 18 per cent rise in 2011, 19 per cent in 2010 and 13 per cent in 2009. 

The rise is also likely to confirm the fears of Dutch regulator Theo Boer who told the Daily Mail that he expected to see euthanasia cases smash the 6,000 barrier in 2014. 

Overall, deaths by euthanasia, which officially account for three per cent of all deaths in the Netherlands, have increased by 151 per cent in just seven years.

The statistics also indicate that of the 4829 euthanasia deaths in 2013, about 3600 were people with cancer, 97 were people with dementia and 42 were people with psychiatric issues.

Peter Saunders

Dr Peter Saunders, a founder of the Care Not Killing Alliance, told the Daily Mail that the experience with euthanasia in the Netherlands indicates that euthanasia is impossible to effectively regulate.

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

...there was a similar pattern of increasing numbers of assisted suicide and euthanasia in the US state of Oregon, Switzerland, and Belgium. 

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

Theo Boer

The article then interviews Professor Theo Boer, who was a member of Euthanasia Review Committee in the Netherlands for 9 years, recently changed his mind and now opposes euthanasia.

Professor Boer, who has reviewed 4,000 cases of euthanasia in his role as a regulator, told Parliament in the summer: ‘Don’t go there.’ 

Once a firm advocate of euthanasia, he said that he now the Dutch were ‘terribly wrong’ to think they could control it.

Writing in the Daily Mail, he said his country has witnessed an ‘explosive increase’ in the numbers of euthanasia deaths since 2007 and that he expected the number of such deaths this year to hit 6,000. 

He was also gravely concerned at the extension of killing to new classes of people, including the demented and the depressed. ‘Some slopes truly are slippery,’ he said.

The article then examing the experience with euthanasia in Belgium.

Doctors in neighbouring Belgium, which this year legalised euthanasia for children, are now killing an average of five people every day by euthanasia, according to latest figures, with a 27 per cent surge in the number of euthanasia deaths in the last year alone. 

In one of the most shocking cases, a Brussels man last week described how he arranged the double euthanasia of his octogenarian parents who wanted to die because they were afraid of loneliness.

The article concludes by explaining that the Netherlands have now interpreted the term "unbearable suffering" to apply to mental anguish. The article states:

It has also emerged that a Dutch woman in her 80s was killed by her doctors just because she did not want to live in a care home. 

The case is the first to be referred to Dutch prosecutors by regulators since euthanasia was legalised in Holland 12 years ago.

The British House of Lords needs to listen to the experience of Professor Boer and reject the assisted dying bill.

Links to more information:

• Theo Boer: "Assisted suicide: Don't go there."
• Netherlands 2013 euthanasia report.
• Dutch euthanasia clinic injects woman who didn't want to live in a nursing home.

Help Not Dead Yet UK defeat the assisted suicide bill.

Join the Not Dead Yet UK thunderclap to unleash tweets, facebook and social media messages in opposition to the assisted suicide bill at the same time on Friday January 16, the day when the House of Lords will be yet again discussing and amending the assisted dying bill.

Not Dead Yet UK has been using thunderclap for the past year and it has enabled them to win the social media battle. The assisted suicide lobby has caught onto this and have copied them. Instead of physically protesting on Friday, Not Dead Yet UK are having a virtual protest which includes writing to peers and signing up to their Thunderclap. Please use your networks to ensure we have a virtual presence opposing the assisted suicide bill on Friday?

Link to thunderclap: https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/21181-opposing-an-assisted-dying-law

The Not Dead Yet UK Thunderclap just went online so only a few have signed up but that will soon change with your help. 

The Thunderclap is set to go off  just before the Lords debate begins in London England at 9.30 am (GMT) on Friday 16th January.

That is the same as 4:30 am (Toronto/EST) or 5:30 pm (Sydney Australia)

Many thanks for your continued help in this campaign.

Liz Carr – Not Dead Yet UK

Senior's death on floor of her home raises questions around care

This article was first published in Advocate Daily.

The case of a Winnipeg man accused of leaving his fallen, elderly mother on the floor of her home where she then died is a “horrifying” example of why a process is needed to ensure all Canadian seniors have proper care, says Toronto health and human rights lawyer Hugh Scher.

Ron Siwicki, 62, was arrested Dec. 17 and charged with criminal negligence causing death and failing to provide the necessaries of life after the death of his 89-year-old mother, CBC reports.

Siwicki's lawyers have said the woman did not want to continue her life, and did not want her son to call for help. Siwicki covered her with a blanket on the floor and fed her nutritional drinks and water until she died, says the report.

“We really need to take steps to ensure that seniors are not effectively left in situations where they are ultimately deprived of the basic necessities of life and neglected,” Scher tells CBC News. Listen to Scher on the World at Six (Item begins at 13:09). As counsel to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and past chair of human rights for the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, Scher has been involved in several precedent end-of-life cases and notes that this should never have been one.

In an interview with AdvocateDaily.com, Scher says the case raises questions around end-of-life wishes and care.

“How far can this really go?” he says. “Does it go to the point where we can just allow senior citizens to be left to lay and die on their floors at home after they’ve fallen? Or are we to take appropriate care to ensure there is dignified living and dignified death?”

While debates around end-of-life care are nothing new, Scher says the Siwicki case is particularly disturbing.

“I was surprised and horrified at the notion that this is how we’re going to treat our seniors; this is how we’re going to treat those who are vulnerable and in our care, to simply leave them to die on the floor with only the most basic of food and water, and without any basic pain and symptom management,” he says. “This is a very concerning proposition as it’s clearly contrary to basic human rights obligations and to basic care obligations that we all owe as citizens and as people of this country, particularly those who are in positions of trust and authority relative to their loved ones or are healthcare providers.”

Scher tells AdvocateDaily.com that steps need to be taken to ensure “we don’t neglect or abuse people, that people are not left to simply rot to death and that we do not effectively deprive people of the necessities of life both contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada and our most basic legal and moral obligations as Canadians.”

A cultural shift, says Scher, has contributed to society’s changing views on assisted suicide.

“It’s really disrespecting – to a greater extent than before – human beings and human life in a manner that really does put people who are vulnerable and in the care of others at risk. There must be exceptional efforts taken, I think, to ensure that neglect and abuse are avoided," says Scher.

Scher links this societal shift to the decline of fundamental social institutions like family, religion and medicine.

“We have historically believed that the third-party killing of people is wrong,” says Scher.

“The changing attitude in this area reflects a clear breakdown in some of our most basic social institutions, be they family, be they the medical supports that people have earned the right to depend on, or be they the religious and other moral pillars that have historically served as the basis both for our laws and behaviour in society."

• The Siwicki case in Winnipeg does not highlight the euthanasia debate.

Human Error led to Euthanasia of Rescued dogs.

By Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

NBC news has reported that the Dallas Animal Services (DAS) is investigating the accidental deaths of four rescued dogs by euthanasia.

I have rarely commented on the euthanasia of animals, but this case outlines the reality of legalizing euthanasia for humans. In case you ask, we have a beautiful golden-doodle at home.

The news story states that four Aussie mix dogs were to be placed in foster homes after being rescued from a possible hoarding situation but died by euthanasia instead, two days later, on New Year's day.

Dr Cate McManus, the operations manager for DAS stated:

"These lives were lost as a result of human error,"

Jody Jones a manager at DAS stated in a news conference:

"There are safeguards within the daily intake procedures and outcome procedures for the division that would have safeguarded against these animals from being inappropriately euthanized," 

"If they had been followed, to the changes that have been made, then yes these animals would still be alive today."

The NBC news article concluded:

Assisted dying would turn doctor's into executioners.

A majority of Britons may support the Bill, but that's also true of the death penalty

I was going through past articles from and I came across this article that was originally published in the Independent on July 18, 2014. Alex Schadenberg

Kevin Yuill

By Kevin Yuill

Clayton Lockett’s death by lethal injection earlier this year in Oklahoma brought a storm of criticism of Oklahoma’s death penalty procedures. Lockett mumbled, writhed, blinked his eyes and licked his lips throughout the procedure and took over 30 minutes to die. The Los Angeles Times observed: “The Oklahoma case is sure to be cited as strong evidence that state prison authorities cannot be trusted to capably administer lethal injections.”

But today the House of Lords is debating whether to invest British doctors with the same powers as the Oklahoma state prison authorities. Doctors will effectively become executioners if Lord Falconer’s Bill becomes law.

Why do liberals who, like me, think that capital punishment is unacceptable in a civilized society rush to support Falconer’s Bill? Beyond simply the method of dispatching people, there are many other similarities. If the premeditated killing of a human being by the state, even for the best possible reasons, is wrong, assisted dying is wrong.

Of course, there are important differences between assisted dying and capital punishment. But the similarities bear scrutiny in relation to today’s debate.

The Historical Kevorkian

This article was published on the National Review Online on January 9, 2015.

B

Wesley Smith

y Wesley Smith

I am often asked for interviews by students who are writing papers about the assisted suicide issue. I am always happy to oblige. Most ask why I oppose assisted suicide and whether I think guidelines can prevent the slippery slope. But, the other day, I was contacted by a high-schooler writing a paper about something I had never considered: the historical significance of Jack Kevorkian.

Having cut my anti-euthanasia advocacy teeth during Kevorkian’s assisted suicide spree in the 1990s, I was deeply involved in opposing everything he represented. But until I received this interview request, I had never considered what his legacy might be.

It is too soon to answer what, if any, historical significance Kevorkian will have. I hope none. If we are a moral society in one hundred years, he will be remembered—if he is remembered at all—as a crass social outlaw, operating at a time of cultural hesitancy, who preyed upon the despairing in pursuit of his own nihilistic ends. But there’s a chance we will not be a moral society. So, I did my best to put on my “objective hat” and give the most dispassionate answer I could.

Here is part of what I wrote:

The Siwicki case in Winnipeg does not highlight the euthanasia debate.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On December 17, 2014, Ron Siwicki was arrested and charged in the death of his mother, Betty Siwicki (89) who was living with dementia. Ron Siwicki was charged with criminal negligence causing death and failing to provide the necessities of life.

An article by Thomas Wolkam falsely compared this case to the euthanasia debate in Canada.

Due to a publication ban, the information around the case is not clear but the basic story suggests that Betty Siwicki was injured, after a fall, sometime in November. Since she did not want medical treatment she was left, dying on the floor, for a period of time until she died, in the home that she shared with her son. 

Ron Siwicki claims that he fulfilled his mother's wishes.

This case does not hightlight the euthanasia debate in Canada but rather it highlights the issues concerning the obligation to provide basic personal care and the basic necessaries of life.

Every Canadian has the right to refuse medical treatment. If Betty Siwicki was competent to refuse medical treatment, her wishes would have been honoured. In this case, Betty Siwicki was left on the floor of her home to die.

The law does not permit Canadians to neglect or abandon their elderly parents or their children by denying them basic personal care or the basic necessaries of life.

The euthanasia debate is not about whether people should have the right to die with a minimal pain, as the article falsely states. Nobody is arguing that effective pain and symptom management should be denied to anyone.

The euthanasia debate is about whether doctors should have the right to lethally inject people. Currently, no one has the right in law to cause death, or be involved with causing the death of another person.

Assisted Suicide campaigners’ deaths prove we do not need to change assisted suicide laws

By Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick (OBE), Director of EPC - International.

W

Kevin Fitzpatrick
at European Parliament.

e do not ‘speak ill of the dead’. De mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est, a mortuary aphorism that dates from at least the 4th century is, I suspect, rooted in a superstitious fear that the dead may come back to harm us if we say bad things about them; perhaps that we might ourselves be condemned to wander as ‘lost souls’ in revenge for badmouthing those who are gone. We may, at times, wish to honour the memory of someone we couldn’t stand in life, or whose works and their consequences we hated; but if we are to avoid dishonesty, insincerity, we must have the courage to stand by what we said when they were alive. We can still be properly respectful in how we speak.

Of course the rule does not apply universally, but it seems we only allow ourselves to tell hard truths if the dead person was truly bad, a mass murderer. Maybe that comes from recognising that we are all fragile, given to making mistakes, doing some bad things at times.

In any case, it is surely possible to distinguish between the person and their legacy. I met and debated with Debbie Purdy a couple of times and I thought she was wrong – she made what is called a ‘category mistake’ – mixing up the category of one individual saying ‘I want to die now’ with the idea that such a wish must be enshrined in law. Individual wishes are just that – individual. Laws cover every citizen of a state or jurisdiction in which they are passed - which means they are a whole different category. It was her campaigning for this category mistake to be legalised that brought us into opposition.

After hours of grilling by Tony Nicklinson, in an interview he had demanded, I asked him: ‘Say you get your way tomorrow and the law is changed, and the next day, even just one innocent person dies as a result - what would you say?’ He would not respond at that point, and terminated the interview.

But that is the point for me: if, as a campaigner, you cannot guarantee the safety of others, then the death of innocent people under such laws, even that threat, should stop the campaign in its tracks, force campaigners to re-assess what they are doing.

The legacy of such campaigners, three of whom (two in Britain, one in Australia) died ‘peacefully’ in hospice or palliative care settings over Christmas, is surely the biggest, final irony. These three died ‘good deaths’ without any change in law. They have proved there is no need for a change in law in the UK, in Australia, anywhere in the world.

Stay of Execution (euthanasia) for Belgian prisoner

This article was published on the HOPE Australia blog on January 7, 2015.

By Paul Russell, The Director of Hope Australia and the Vice Chair of EPC - International

Paul Russell

Frank Van Den Bleeken's 'executioners have second thoughts.

Frank Van Den Bleeken was scheduled to be killed by euthanasia in a Belgian prison on January 11th after receiving approval from the Belgian courts. However, in mixed messages about the reasoning, within the last 24 hours, Van Den Bleeken’s request to die will now not be honoured.

A number of media outlets reported that the doctors who had agreed to commit the act of euthanasia had withdrawn. Shortly after, The Belgian Minister of Justice, Koen Geens announced that Van Den Bleeken would be transferred to a new psychiatric facility in Ghent and, afterwards, to a long-stay facility in The Netherlands.

It is hard not to be cynical about this ‘eleventh-hour reprieve’. Van Den Bleeken had, according to reports, only received one psychiatric intervention in his entire 30 year incarceration. He had previously asked to be transferred to the above mentioned Dutch facility and had been refused. He had been engaging the Belgian authorities for more than two years for access to euthanasia.

It is understood that up to 1000 prisoners with psychiatric disorders are housed in the general prison population with no support for their conditions. The European Court of Human Rights has condemned Belgium’s lack of humane facilities fourteen times in recent years. Little wonder that following the publicity around Van Den Bleeken 15 other inmates have also requested euthanasia.

Even Belgium’s euthanasia supremo Dr Wim Distelmans expressed reservations about this case. In an opinion article in De Morgen, Distelmans writes: I decide no longer to act as physician for euthanasia because I think some (legal) due diligence are not respected. The unbearable suffering must be caused by the incurable (psychiatric) disorder, which is only partially true. Additionally, all therapeutic options should be offered - if the patient wants - including palliative treatments that do not cure but provide a better quality of life.

Here Distelmans is reflecting upon the structure of the Belgian euthanasia law. However, Distelmans’ reference to other ‘therapeutic options’ will be considered to be little more than a bad joke for people like Tom Mortier whose mother was euthanased by Distelmans when suffering treatable clinical depression. The addition of ‘if the patient wants’ as a qualifier in Distelmans’ objection is rather telling. What if Van Den Bleeken doesn’t want to go to the Dutch facility? Does he then qualify for euthanasia? Again, a cynical view would suggest that Distelman is simply trying to distance himself from yet another controversial euthanasia death.