Canadian government consultation on legislative options for Assisted Dying begins.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC)

On July 17, the Canadian government appointed an expert panel to examine the Supreme Court of Canada assisted suicide decision. The panel has a website to enable groups and individuals to be part of a consultation. The panel will make recommendations to the government concerning legislative options for assisted suicide legislation.

The consultation website is now online in English and French.

Written submissions can be sent to:

External Panel on Options for a Legislative Response to Carter v. Canada
East Memorial Building
284 Wellington Street, CS-937
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0H8

The panel appointees are: Dr Harvey Chochinov, a psychiatrist and palliative care leader, Catherine Frazee, a disability rights leader and past co-director of Disability Studies at Ryerson University, and Benoit Pelletier, a member of the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa.

EPC is encouraging our supporters to "sign up" for the consultation updates on the consultation website by entering the required information.

EPC is urging our supporters to submit their opinions to the consultation.

Talking Points:

• People with disabilities, frail elderly people and those who are dependent on others can be subtly pressured.
• Canadians need better end-of-life care. Caring Not Killing.
• Elder abuse has become a scourge on our culture. Euthanasia may become the ultimate form of elder abuse.
• Euthanasia is accepted for depression or other psychiatric reasons in Belgium and the Netherlands. These are people who need help not death.
• The law needs to protect Canadians, especially when we are at the most vulnerable time of our lives.

It is important for you to state your opinion now.

Links to resource articles to help you respond to the consultation.

• Opposing the Supreme Court of Canada assisted death decision.
• Supreme Court Assisted Suicide decision is irresponsible and dangerous.
• Canada: Assisted suicide letter writing campaign.
• Study: Euthanasia for psyciatric reasons - 100 Belgian cases.
• Belgium: Euthanasia treatment for depression.
• More than 1000 deaths were hastened without request in Belgium.
• Assisted suicide shouldn't be for those in the fog of depression.
• Liz Carr speaks about euthanasia of people with disabilities.
• Assisted suicide ruling warps the perception of people with disabilities.
• Assisted suicide is just wrong - disability perspective.
• Ontario physicians want their conscience rights protected.
• Canadians need a right to good palliative care.
• Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians - Assisted suicide should not be provided by palliative care physicians.

Killing for Organs

This article was published on Wesley Smith's blog on July 28, 2015.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

We are a society of public policy promise breakers. Advocates for radical transformations in law and culture promise their proposed changes will be constrained and regulated by strict guidelines. 

Then, when the policy becomes law, it is often Katy bar the door and the old promises are forgotten. 

That pattern has not played out with organ transplant medicine. Yet. 

Not for lack of trying. Many in bioethics and the transplant field want to break the important promise solemnly made that vital organs would only be taken from patients who are dead. This is known as the “dead donor rule.” 

But with the backlog of organs growing due to fewer catastrophic brain injuries and improvements in transplant medicine, the utilitarians want to make the dead donor rule dead (as I have written about often over recent years). 

The latest promise breaker pusher is Walter Glannon, a Canadian bioethicist, writing in the philosophical journal Aeon. First, Gannon says honoring patient choice to be killed and harvested is more important than that the patient actually be dead first. 

Glannon has a whole list of people who could be killed for their organs. First sophistry, taking kidneys before death, and pretending it doesn’t actually cause death. From the piece: 

In a protocol developed by the transplant surgeon Paul Morrissey at Brown University in Rhode Island, for instance, kidneys can be taken from patients while they are alive because doing this does not cause brain death or heart death. Death is declared after the kidneys, and then life-support, are removed. This scheme applies only to kidneys, though, and is thus limited. 

I was unaware this is happening. If so, “scheme” is the right word since it is crass sophistry that pretends that the taking of the kidneys would not cause death. Ironically, kidneys don’t deteriorate as fast as other organs. So, this seems to me a gambit to destroy the DDR. It should be stopped. 

CA Judge: No right to Assisted Suicide in California.

This article was published by Wesley Smith on his blog on July 24.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

Assisted suicide advocates care about results, not methods. If they can’t win in legislatures or in a popular vote, they try to have a judge impose their will.

Two such cases have been filed in California. One trial judge nixed the assertion that there is a right to assisted suicide. From the Times of San Diego story:

Superior Court Judge Gregory Pollack said the case was not about the “right to die” but whether a law making assisted suicides in California illegal was constitutional. Pollack said appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have made a distinction between “letting a person die and making a person die.” “You can’t do that (make a person die) in California,” the judge said

Lest anyone cheer too loudly, the other case was filed in San Francisco–where anything can happen.

Of course there will be an appeal!

Study: 100 requests for euthanasia for psychiatric reasons in Belgium.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg

International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a "study" on July 28, 2015 examining 100 requests for euthanasia for psychiatric reasons in Belgium. 

Four of the six authors of the study are connected to the euthanasia clinic in Belgium.

Wim Distlemans operates the euthanasia clinic in Belgium, and Lieve Thienpont, Kurt Audenaert, Peter P De Deyn work with the euthanasia clinic. 

Distelmans has been connected to many of the high profile euthanasia deaths, including Godelieva De Troyer, the mother of Tom Mortier.

Thienport is the psychiatrist who approved the euthanasia death in the recent story of "Laura" the 24-year-old physically healthy Belgian woman who lives with suicidal thoughts. 

Thienport was the psychiatrist who examined the 100 people who requested euthanasia for psychiatric reasons. 

Link to a Youtube video of Thienport speaking about the study.

The stated objectives of the study are: 

first, to report on characteristics of psychiatric patients requesting euthanasia because of psychological suffering; and second, to describe the formal assessment procedures and outcomes of the euthanasia requests. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to explore the determinants, procedures and outcomes of euthanasia requests in a relatively large group of psychiatric patients with psychological suffering.

The objectives of this study should state: 

this study was written to justify lethal injection for people who are healthy but living with psychological suffering in Belgium. 

It is possible that Distelmans and Thienport designed the study in defense of the practice of euthanasia for psychiatric reasons after receiving complaints.

What did the study find?

The "study" examines 100 consecutive requests for euthanasia at a psychiatric out-patient clinic between October 2007 and December 2011. The analysis of the data closed in December 2012. The data states:

• 77 euthanasia requests were made by woman, 23 were men,
• of the 48 approved requests, 35 died by euthanasia, 
• 1 died by palliative sedation (sedation with withdrawal of water),
• the average age was 47,
• 58 were depressed, 50 had a personality disorder,
• 12 were autistic, 13 had post traumatic stress disorder, 11 had anxiety disorder, 10 had an eating disorder, and more

The study begins by promoting the "safeguards" in the Belgian euthanasia law and explaining how the safeguards for euthanasia for psychiatric reasons follows tighter guidelines. The first section of the study takes pains to convince the readers that euthanasia is carefully done in Belgium.

It then examines the data from the reported euthanasia deaths indicating that the number of reported euthanasia deaths has been increasing in Belgium from 742 (2004/2005) to 2086 (2010/2011). Belgian statistics indicate that there was a 26% increase in euthanasia deaths in 2013.

The study suggests that an increase in reporting of euthanasia, a requirement of the Belgian euthanasia law, may be reflected in the increased number of reported euthanasia deaths.

"This rise over a 6-year period may reflect a true increase or better reporting of cases of euthanasia."

A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) (March 19, 2015) found that euthanasia represented 4.6% of all deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium in 2013, while the official reports indicate that euthanasia represented 2.4% of all deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium in 2013.

When comparing the NEJM (March 2015) data (Jan - June 2013) from Flanders Belgium to the data in a previous study that was published in the BMJ (November 2010) (June - Dec 2007) from Flanders Belgium, it appears that the percentage of unreported euthanasia deaths is statistically unchanged between 2007 (47%) and 2013 (49%).

Last year, Dr Marc Cosyns, a Belgian euthanasia doctor, admitted that he does not report his euthanasia deaths. With nearly half of all euthanasia deaths not being reported one can safely conclude that the "safeguards" in the Belgian euthanasia law are often ignored.

The study continues to suggest that the Belgian euthanasia law is careful. The study states:

Legally, the physician is required to discuss the wishes of the patient with the relatives named by the patient. Consent from the relatives is not required, and the attending physician needs the patient’s permission to inform family members of the euthanasia request.

This statement may be a response to complaints by families. Tom Mortier was shocked when his depressed mother died by lethal injection, and her family was not informed of her impending death.

People with disabilities are more likely to die by euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.

Of the 100 requests for euthanasia for psychiatric reasons, 81 of them were not employed (8 were retired, 73 were receiving disability allowances or retired early), 14 were working or on a temporary leave, 1 was a student, 1 was in prison, and 1 was on welfare. Primarily, these were people with disabilities who are receiving a disability allowance. 

The study does not examine whether the person also had physical disabilities but it indicates that people with disabilities disproportionately die by euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.

Euthanasia as "treatment" for psychiatric reasons:

The study states that:

• 38 people who requested euthanasia for psychiatric reasons were referred for further testing. Out of these, 17 of them were approved for lethal injection and 10 died by euthanasia.

• 62 people who requested euthanasia for psychiatric reasons were not referred for further testing. Out of these, 31 were approved for lethal injection and 25 died by euthanasia.

• 35 of 48 people who were approved for lethal injection died by euthanasia. The 13 people, in this group, who did not die by euthanasia, 8 changed their mind, 2 withdrew their application based on family response, 2 died by suicide and 1 was in prison.

• 65 people did not die by euthanasia. By the end of 2012, 57 were alive, 48 of the 57 cases were on hold based on the person receiving therapy or not needing therapy, 9 of these cases the euthanasia request was still being considered.

• of the 35 people who died by euthanasia for psychiatric reasons, 14 of them were lethally injected by a doctor at the euthanasia clinic.

The authors should have collected more data about the 57 people who were alive at the end of 2012. Since the study was published in July 2015 and since all of the participants were patients of Lieve Thienpont, therefore further information would have been available and helpful.

Psychological suffering?

The study concludes by pointing out that the concept of "unbearable suffering" is subjective and undefined. The study states:

A literature review made clear that the concept of ‘unbearable suffering’ has not yet been defined adequately, and that views on this concept are in a state of flux. It is generally accepted that this concept is considered to be subjective, dependent on personal values, and that it must be determined in the first place by the patient.

Unbearable suffering for psychological reasons is even more subjective and undefined, as stated by the study:

Unfortunately, there are no guidelines for the management of euthanasia requests on grounds of mental suffering in Belgium.

This "study" has was done by members of the euthanasia movement. All of the requests for euthanasia were made by people who were patients of Lieve Thienpont, a psychiatrist who works with Wim Distlemans at the euthanasia clinic.

This may be the first study to examine the experience with euthanasia for psychological pain, but it is also a study that appears to have been done to create more acceptance of euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.

Recently the Supreme Court of Canada decided that euthanasia could be acceptable for reasons of physical or psychological suffering. Let's hope that Canada keeps a tight lid on euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.

• Healthy 24-year-old woman to die by euthanasia in Belgium.
• Depressed woman dies by euthanasia in Belgium.
• Court challenge: Belgian doctor kills depressed woman by euthanasia.
• Belgian euthanasia promoter attacks man whose mother died by euthanasia.
• Assisted suicide shouldn't be for those in the fog of depression.

Netherlands euthanasia clinic specializes in psychiatric patients.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg

International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Dutch media has reported that the Netherlands euthanasia clinic euthanised 18 people with psychiatric conditions in the first half of this year, more than double the number of psychiatric euthanasia deaths in 2014.

The media reported:

In the first six months of this year, 18 people with severe psychiatric problems have been helped to die at a special euthanasia clinic, the NRC said on Thursday. 

This is more than double the total figure of 17 in 2014 as a whole, the clinic’s first half figures show. 

In addition, almost 100 psychiatric patients are on the waiting list for help, the NRC said. This is because of a shortage of psychiatrists to make the assessments and manage the requests. 

The clinic was set up in 2012 to help people whose doctors are unwilling to grant euthanasia requests, and operates a nationwide network of teams made up of doctors and nurses.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition predicted that the Dutch euthanasia clinic would focus on people with disabilities, those who lacked mobility and those with psychiatric conditions.

The 2013 Netherlands euthanasia report stated that there were 42 reported euthanasia deaths of people with psychiatric problems and 97 reported euthanasia deaths of people with dementia. The number of reported euthanasia deaths was up by 15% to 4829 in 2013.

Theo Boer

Last year, Professor Theo Boer, an ethicist and nine year member of a Regional Euthanasia Review Committee in the Netherlands, stated:

I used to be a supporter of legislation. But now, with twelve years of experience, I take a different view.

At the very least, wait for an honest and intellectually satisfying analysis of the reasons behind the explosive increase in the numbers. Is it because the law should have had better safeguards? Or is it because the mere existence of such a law is an invitation to see assisted suicide and euthanasia as a normality instead of a last resort? Before those questions are answered, don’t go there. 

Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is not likely to ever go back in again.

It appears that the euthanasia genie is out of the bottle in the Netherlands. Let us take Professor Boer's advice by rejecting euthanasia everywhere.

• Netherlands 2013 euthanasia report.
• Dutch ethicist: Assisted suicide - Don't go there.
• A healthy blind woman dies by euthanasia in the Netherlands.
• Assisted suicide should not be for those in the fog of depression.

Canada’s euthanasia legislation: From the perspective of a Canadian with disabilities

The following article was published by Ottawa Life Magazine on July 23.

Peter McGrath, a Counsel in the Department of Justice, gives
his opinion from the perspective of a Canadian with a disability.

By Peter McGrath

On Feb. 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s assisted suicide law, opening the door to physician-assisted suicide. This is an incredibly complex topic, one fraught with moral and ethical issues. Peter McGrath, a Counsel in the Department of Justice, gives his opinion from the perspective of a Canadian with a disability:

There are valid points to both sides of the debate on Canada’s euthanasia legislation. Steven Fletcher — a Member of Parliament from Winnipeg with a disability — is the most visible proponent of physician-assisted suicide in Canada. Some would argue his position has merit. Many people with disabilities live in fear of not being able to control the end of their lives. Poorly funded palliative care combined with the possible inability to make one’s wishes clear has led to many people living painful lives.

The occasional media horror story has magnified those fears tenfold. But isn’t the answer to fix the system, rather to provide people with a lethal end? Isn’t the answer to think beyond causing death and provide all of us — including people with disabilities — with dignified lives?

People with disabilities live far from inclusive lives in Canadian society. With low levels of education and employment, inadequate housing and transportation services, and even a medical system that is not designed to handle our needs, people with disabilities have a long way to go to be considered equal members of our society.

The new euthanasia legislation is intended to provide some level of control over ending our lives, yet it’s sad that we’ve achieved equality in death before we’ve achieved equality in life. In Canada, like much of the world, people with disabilities do not have sufficient access to education, transportation, housing, medical care, employment, or recreation and leisure activities.

First and foremost, what Canadians with disabilities seek is an end to inequality and an end to the lack of access to the basic quality of life enjoyed by average Canadians.

The positioning of people with disabilities in euthanasia legislation is somewhat off-putting. It is as if to say we define people with disabilities as suffering, and now they can have the option to end their life. People with disabilities are as much or more interested in their rights to life, because being disabled means living with a disability; it doesn’t necessarily mean dying with a disease.

All too frequently, people with disabilities can recount a time when a well-intended medical professional said to their parents that the disabled life of this baby or injured child would be one of suffering and perhaps not worth living. In effect, we have provided those children with disabilities the means to die before they have the means to live.

Physically and/or developmentally Canadians with disabilities remain a marginalized segment of Canadian society. Our interests lie far more in rights to leading productive lives of equality, rather than achievement in ending of life options.

• Catherine Frazee: There can be dignity in all states of life.

Belgium's sad assisted suicide path.

Published by OneNewsNow on July 22.

By Charlie Butts

Alex Schadenberg

An expert on the subject contends that Belgium provides ample evidence of the room to abuse euthanasia and assisted suicide after it is legalized.

Sign the letter of Hope to Laura.

One case in question is a 24-year-old woman in Belgium who has received permission to have her doctor kill her this summer. The reason is that she has experienced suicidal thoughts since childhood. Alex Schadenberg of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International tells OneNewsNow that although her disorder is treatable, she decided to request suicide for another reason.

“In fact, you have the sad reality of a woman who has been suffering with suicidal thoughts, but at the same time she had a friend who also died by euthanasia,” he says. “You put the two together and [can see that] she's seeking to follow that same sad path. What she needs is someone who really wants to support her, who is going to journey with her, who is going to give her good counseling and support. She doesn't need death.”

He says that's how far down the path to a death mentality Belgium has gone, offering a lethal injection for someone who has treatable depression.

“Once you allow killing for one reason, there are many reasons people might want to die,” he says. “The only question is what are we going to say yes or no to, and in Belgium they've gone far down that road. It is better never to enter that road.”

Schadenberg says that's a warning not only to the United States but also to Canada, where doctor-assisted suicide was legalized this year by Supreme Court edict.

• Healthy 24-year-old Belgian woman to die by euthanasia.
• Letter of HOPE to Laura.

TV Ontario promotes assisted suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Ontario government funds, TV Ontario,  a broadcaster that has scheduled to air the one-sided documentary "Gloria and Me", on July 29. The documentary is about Gloria Taylor, the woman whose case led to the dangerous and irresponsible Supreme Court decision that struck down Canada's laws protecting people from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

EPC does not oppose TV Ontario airing "Gloria and Me" but rather we oppose the one-sided promotion of euthanasia and assisted suicide by the media. TV Ontario is primarily funded by the Ontario government.

Send emails or phone TV Ontario (link) expressing your opposition to airing a one-sided documentary without providing equal time by airing a program against euthanasia and assisted suicide. They could at least have set-up a debate after the airing of the program.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are issues of life and death. It is in the public interest to always air all sides of this issue.

Link to a previous TVO program from 2011 that was fair and balanced.

The Oklahoman news rejects assisted suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Aaron Kheriaty

The Oklahoman Editorial Board, on July 20, published a position opposing assisted suicide under the headline: Laws allowing assisted suicide can have far-reaching impact. 

California lawmakers recently debated assisted suicide bill SB 128, which the editorial began by noting, "has been put on hold." Part of the explanation why California lawmakers have paused to "rethink" the proposal was the analysis provided in a letter by Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, a psychiatrist who is director of the Program in Medical Ethics at the University of California Irvine. The editorial board noted that Dr Kheriaty explained how such laws "can lead to death to a far wider and often healthier population."

The Oklahoman editorial noted that Kheriaty wrote:

“The desire to end one’s life, or the request for assisted suicide, is almost always a cry for help,” 

“It is a distress signal indicating that something in the patient’s situation is not adequately being attended to — an untreated clinical depression, fear or anxiety about the future or about one’s medical condition, untreated or under-treated pain, family or relationship strain or conflict, and so on.”

Kheriaty wrote in his letter that:

80 percent to 90 percent of suicides are associated with clinical depression or other treatable mental disorders, “including for individuals at the end-of-life and individuals with a terminal condition.” 

Yet in Oregon... just 5 percent of the individuals who died by assisted suicide were referred for psychiatric evaluation prior to their deaths, “and this number is decreasing every year.” 

As Keriaty observed, 

“Considering what we know about suicide risk factors, this constitutes a form of gross medical negligence,”

According to the Oklahoman editorial:

research shows there is a “social contagion” aspect to suicide. Publicity surrounding one suicide often leads others to kill themselves. In Oregon, suicide rates are 35 percent higher than the national average.

Kheriaty wrote:

“The law is a teacher, and these laws send the message that under difficult circumstances, some lives are not worth living,” 

“This is a message that will be heard not only by terminally ill individuals, but by all vulnerable persons who are tempted to take their own lives.”

The Oklahoman then warned that:

Oklahoma is home to roughly 3.8 million people, and it’s estimated between 700,000 and 950,000 of those citizens need mental health or substance abuse treatment. Oklahoma is No. 2 nationally in the rate of mental illness among its populace.

The Oklahoman concluded its editorial opposed to assisted suicide by stating:

Assisted suicide laws effectively establish a two-tiered system for treating suicidal people. Those with suicidal thoughts who don’t have obvious terminal illnesses will be given treatment. But those suffering from suicidal thoughts who have serious physical illnesses will be encouraged to kill themselves. Yet in both cases, suicidal thoughts are often a sign of distress that can be resolved without deliberately taking the patient’s life. 

Last November, we wrote that the “strange new world of assisted suicide requires the blurring of moral lines beyond recognition.” Kheriaty’s analysis reinforces that conclusion, and demonstrates why Oklahoma and other states should not go down this dark path.

The Oklahoman editorial board has done its homework and people need to listen to it.

Euthanasia is not a human right in Europe.

The following article was published by Wesley Smith on his blog on July 17, 2015.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

Two cases were brought to the European Court on Human Rights hoping for a Canada-style EU-wide imposition of euthanasia as a fundamental right. Case dismissed. From the Telegraph story:

The European Court of Human Rights has rejected a right-to-die case brought by a paralysed former builder and the widow of man who had locked-in syndrome. 

Paul Lamb and Jane Nicklinson, whose 58-year-old husband Tony died more than two years ago, brought the case at the court in Strasbourg – the culmination of their campaign that disabled people should have the right to be helped to die with dignity. 

But in a written judgment on Thursday, the court said: “In its decision in the case of Nicklinson and Lamb v. the United Kingdom the European Court of Human Rights has unanimously declared the applications inadmissible. The decision is final.” 

It comes after it emerged on Wednesday that two sisters are holding a party to raise £8,000 to pay for their mother to end her life in a Swiss clinic.

By the way, the, “Hey kids, let’s raise money for mom to kill herself!” party is off. 

I am very pleased by the decision. If this toxic death-dealing is to become legal, it should be through democratic processes. 

The Telegraph’s story about the case involved two people with serious disabilities. Despite that, the paper is running poll asking whether assisted suicide should be legalized for the “terminally ill.” So typical.

Canadian government appoints panel to examine euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Canada's Minister of Justice, Hon Peter MacKay, and Minister of Health, Hon Rona Ambrose, appointed an external expert panel to examine the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

EPC welcomes the external panel and we will urge them to make recommendations that will lead to the protection of every Canadian from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

On February 6, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada's laws protecting people from euthanasia and assisted suicide. The Supreme Court gave parliament 12 months to establish new laws.

Today, Harvey Max Chochinov, the Canada research chair in palliative care at the University of Manitoba was appointed to head the panel while Catherine Frazee, a former co-director of the Ryerson-RBC Institute for Disability Studies Research and Education and the former chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and Benoît Pelletier, a University of Ottawa law professor and former Quebec Liberal cabinet minister.

Dr Catherine Frazee

The Justice Ministry press release stated:

The panel will conduct consultations with medical authorities and with interveners in the Carter case to assist the federal government in formulating a legislative response to the Supreme Court's decision. The panel will also consult Canadians, including interested stakeholders, through a public online consultation. The panel will then provide a final report to the Ministers of Justice and Health that outlines its findings and options for a legislative response for consideration by the federal government.

EPC urged the government to appoint a "Commission" and to use the Notwithstanding clause to give us time to effectively legislate on these issues.

EPC will work with its coalition partners to submit a comprehensive response to the external panel. The external panel will report back to the government later this fall.

Assisted Suicide is not a private matter.

This article was published on the HOPE Australia website on July 16.

By Paul Russell, the founder and director of HOPE Australia.

Paul Russell

New Zealand born South African based euthanasia advocate Sean Davison is in the press again, once more seemingly stepping across the line into assisting in suicide.

In 2011, Davison was convicted in a New Zealand Court of assisting the suicide of his own mother in 2006, a matter that came to light in the review of a draft of Davison’s book, Before we say goodbye. Davison admitted in 2010 to crushing 18 morphine tablets and mixing it into a glass of water before handing it to his mother, who had cancer. He was committed to home detention for five months before returning to South Africa and founding a ‘right-to-die’ movement.

In September 2014, Davison admitted at the world ‘right-to-die’ conference in Chicago that he had assisted in the suicide death of a quadriplegic medical doctor in 2013.

Australia’s other ‘Dr Death,’ Rodney Syme, gave a talk at that event entitled: Challenging the Legal System – and getting away with it. Perhaps, Davison heeded Syme’s advice as, on that occasion, no charges were ever brought against him.

Only a few days before Davison made this revelation to his international cohort, on his Dignity SA [Dignity South Africa] twitter feed, Davison tweeted: 

“Dignity SA is committed to good palliative care. Assisted Dying (sic) is a last resort for a small % for whom palliative care is not enough.”

The doctor in question [Dr. Anrich Burge] was not terminally ill. So much for standards.

This week, according to South Africa’s IOL news online, an anonymous caller tipped off the Cape Times that Davison was about to assist in another suicide, this time of a person in hospice care, apparently in his own home.

When contacted by the Cape Times, Davison would neither confirm nor deny. However, he seemed to have effectively admitted that something was afoot by telling the press:

“Where did you get that information from? I cannot confirm or deny that. I can’t comment about (the patient). This is a private matter which should not be publicised in the media. 

“One should respect people’s right to die in a dignified manner. (The patient) has been suffering for a long time.”

Contacted again on Tuesday, Davison insisted on speaking only to the Cape Times editor, but his demand was declined and the news editor contacted him.

Asked if he would be involved in an assisted suicide on Tuesday, Davison said:

“I can’t comment on that. Who says there is a story here. He (the patient) doesn’t want this in the media. 

“This is a private matter. It is up to the patient if he wants this in the media. If you run this story, you are crossing the line.”

Davison may or may not have a point about privacy here; that ultimately would be a matter for the South African Press association. But, if true, it is Davison that has crossed the line, and a clear, bright line at that which prohibits assisting in suicide.

Department of Justice and Correctional Services spokesperson advocate Mthunzi Mhaga told the media that, 

‘if Davison was indeed assisting another person with suicide, he could be charged with murder’.

The unnamed source told the Cape Times that, 

“Davison would be using gas to end the patient’s life at 4pm on July 14 at a residence in Fresnaye.”

That little flag about the use of gas tells me that Davison knows that, so long as there is no evidence of him being at this person’s home at the time of death and no paper or email trail, he is not likely to see a charge raised against him.

Moreover, absent the call from the anonymous person, if the paraphernalia used to induce a hypoxic death is removed and if the gas of choice is nitrogen, there’s nothing to see. Absent an autopsy death would be assumed to have been from natural causes relating to the underlying condition. Even with an autopsy, there’s no ‘smoking gun’.

At this stage the welfare of the person in question is not known. But even if he does commit suicide and even if Davison assists, there remains another ‘if’ that Davison, it appears, may be relying on to avoid the dock. It’s called evidence, or, more precisely, the possible lack there of.

While having every sympathy for the person concerned, I hope that the anonymous caller will have averted this suicide.

Contrary to Davison’s assertion, this is a matter that should be discussed and should be reported in the interests of public safety.

European Court of Human Rights rejects assisted suicide case.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Today, the European Court of Human Rights rejected a case to overturn Britain's assisted suicide law.

The case was brought to the Court of Human Rights in Strasburg by Jane Nicklinson, the widow of Tony Nicklinson, a man who had lived with locked-in syndrome and Paul Lamb who had become paralyzed in an accident.

In rejecting the case, the European Court of Human Rights stated that:

the UK Parliament was "best placed" to rule on such a sensitive issue.

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick

On June 25, 2014; the UK Supreme Court also rejected an attempt by Nicklinson and Lamb to overturn the laws protecting people from assisted suicide. Not Dead Yet UK spokesperson, Kevin Fitzpatrick, responded to the UK Supreme Court decision by stating:

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are profoundly dangerous, irrespective of such hard cases, not least because they pose a very grave risk to thousands of disabled people who have been made vulnerable by cuts in health and social care services and welfare benefits, making some feel they would be better off dead and no longer a burden on their family and friends.

The British House of Commons will be debating a bill to legalize assisted suicide this fall.

Not Dead Yet UK recently sent a letter to Prime Minister David Cameron explaining why they oppose assisted suicide and organized a rally featuring an excellent speech by disability leader and actress Liz Carr.

Summary of Liz Carr's speech at Not Dead Yet - UK rally.

The summary of Liz Carr's speech was published by Dr Peter Saunders on his blog.

Not Dead Yet assembled at 10 Downing St.

People with disabilites descended on Westminster today in droves to lobby MPs on Rob Marris’s Assisted Dying (no 2) Bill.

Marris's assisted suicide bill is due for its second reading on 11 September.

Stand-up comedian and actress Liz Carr addressed the gathering and was introduced by former Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson.

They later visited 10 Downing Street to hand a letter to the Prime Minister.

The following is a summary by Dr Peter Saunders of Liz Carr’s speech. This is based on his (not fully legible) handwritten notes and does no justice to Liz's sense of humor and eloquence but at least it will give you the general gist. The talk was recorded so I will post a link to the video here once it has been produced. Any errors in transcription are his alone:

Liz Carr as Clarissa Mullery in Silent Witness.

Summary of Liz Carr's speech

We shouldn’t be fooled by the term ‘assisted dying’. This is assisted suicide. So let’s call it what it actually is. It’s about people having help to kill themselves.

The former name of Dignity in Dying (DID), the organisation pushing this bill, is the ‘Voluntary Euthanasia Society’. They will use any euphemism to distort the facts and disguise their wider agenda.

Their main weapons are misinformation, emotion and fear – fear about pain, dependence and disability. So we have to fight this fear with facts and truth.

Is there anyone in this room who wouldn’t prefer a pain free death with dignity? Of course not. We all want that. But this law is not the way to achieve it.

Assisted suicide is not about having a painless and pleasant death either. The drugs are unpleasant and they often do not work quickly. Far better to be in the hands of a doctor trained in good palliative care who can relieve your symptoms properly.

We are being cast as uncompassionate for opposing this bill. But we are not the people who lack compassion. We understand what it is like to suffer and to have limited options.

I’m able to speak here today because I am loud, articulate and have been on telly. But I speak on behalf of many who are unable to speak in their own defence – vulnerable and disabled people who don’t have access to the drugs, housing , social care, support and choice they would like.

Tanni Grey-Thompson

DID talk about having choice, but I speak for people who do not have a real choice. The proponents of this bill are offering a very narrow choice indeed to a very limited number of people.

If DID really believe in compassion then why don’t they use some of their millions of pounds of resources to ensure that everyone who is vulnerable or dying has good care and support rather than being steered toward suicide?

Anyone can have worth and dignity if they have proper care and support.

The term ‘right to die’ is rubbish. We are all going to die. What is really being talked about here is the right to be killed, something altogether different.

Suicide is already legal and everyone who is serious enough about it is already able to kill themselves. But this bill is about people who want someone else to do it for them. It’s about socially approved suicide. It’s about making suicide socially acceptable when it is actually something we should be trying to prevent.

Anyone can already kill themselves without assistance – by simply stopping eating, taking an overdose or even driving their wheelchair down the stairs. I’m using these examples to make a point – not suggesting that anyone do it. But the point is, why then do we need to change the law to allow people to be assisted to do what they can already do without assistance?

This bill wouldn’t actually help the tiny number of people like Tony Nicklinson who are unable to kill themselves. We will then be told that it is cruel to discriminate against these people and that we should legalise euthanasia as well.

We hear a lot about the term ‘slippery slope’. I don’t use this term because this widening of the law we see in every country that has legalised it is not a passive process. It’s much more accurate to call it ‘incremental extension’.

Let’s have no illusions about the wider agenda. I was in Luxembourg just after they changed the law. The MPs who were pushing for it wanted it for children and elderly people with dementia as well. But they knew they wouldn’t get it so they went for the softer target of the terminally ill.

It is no different here. DID say it is only for mentally competent adults with less than six months to live but think about the people they are using to make their case – Tony Nicklinson, Debbie Purdy, Jeffrey Spector, Paul Lamb, Terry Pratchett. Not one of them actually fits with their definition. None of them are actually terminally ill.

But through these cases they are softening up public opinion for a much bigger legal change.

They say they only want suicide for people with terminal illnesses. And yet they also say they want to prevent vulnerable people – say with mental illnesses – from committing suicide. But many people with terminal illnesses are not desperate to die and many people without terminal illnesses are.

So why do we have one law for one group and another law for the other? This is really just discrimination. It’s saying that it is good for people who are terminally ill to kill themselves – but bad for younger people with mental illness to do so.

But we can’t on the one hand push for suicide prevention for one group of people and encourage suicide for another group. This is a dangerous and confusing mixed message.

And just how workable will this law be in practice? Two doctors are supposed to assess whether a given patient has mental capacity, is terminally ill and has not been coerced. Think of how busy your own GP is and how well they know you. How can they possibly be expected to make an objective judgement about these things?

When I did my euthanasia tour I talked to people involved in the group Compassion and Choices – the equivalent of DID in the US. Their strategy was very clear – push for 10-15 years with stories of desperate cases and eventually public opinion will change and the law will follow.

DID are using the same techniques here and lining up all their celebrities to endorse it. They have all the money and all the media support. But we have no money and our only celebrities are me and the Pope!

I am terrified by this bill. I am terrified because as a disabled person I have experienced first-hand how poorly our society values disabled people. It's the same with elderly people.

I’m always been told, ‘If I was like you I’d kill myself’. ‘If I was like you I’d want to die.’ There are people who sincerely believe that people like me are better off dead.

But I don’t want to die. And to talk about choice when so many vulnerable and disabled people do not have a choice about basic care, housing and support is to put us in a very dangerous position indeed.

This is really serious. It’s about life and death. If this bill becomes law some disabled and vulnerable people will be subjected to exploitation and abuse and will die as a result.

The very reason we don’t allow capital punishment in this society is because the best police investigation and the best judges can come to the wrong conclusion and execute an innocent person.

This bill if passed will also mean that innocent people get killed. The current law protects people against this kind of abuse. It does not need changing.

I appeal to you to join me on 11 September in opposing this bill.

"Big Business" and Assisted Suicide

This article was published on the California Against Assisted Suicide website.

Margaret Dore

By Margaret Dore Esq., MBA*

Assemblyman Roger Hernandez was recently quoted as concerned that big business would use California's assisted suicide proposal, SB 128, to "guide people in that direction," meaning early death via a lethal overdose.

This is a valid concern.

I am an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. Our law is based on a similar law in Oregon. Both laws are similar to SB 128, which seeks to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in California.

In Oregon, it is well documented that Oregon's Medicaid program uses coverage incentives to steer people to suicide. See: Affidavit of Oregon doctor, Ken Stevens, pp 3-4. With legal assisted suicide, private health plans have this same ability. Dr. Stevens states:

If assisted suicide is legalized in [your state], your government health plan could follow a similar pattern. Private health plans could also follow this pattern. If so, these plans would pay for you and/or your family to die, but not to live. (Emphasis added). Id, ¶16.

Dr. Stevens also notes that the mere presence of legal assisted suicide steers people to suicide, which was the case with his patient Jeanette Hall. Her cancer treatment was fully covered, but with the existence of Oregon's law, she nonetheless became adamant that she would kill herself. Dr. Stevens convinced her to be treated instead. (Affidavit, ¶¶ 5-9). She is alive today, fifteen years later.

As for Assemblyman Hernandez's specific "big business concern," in 2013, a Montana State Senator made a similar observation:

I found myself wondering, Where does all the lobby money come from? If it really is about a few terminally ill people who might seek help ending their suffering, why was more money spent on promoting assisted suicide than any other issue in Montana? 

Could it be that convincing an ill person to end their life early will help health insurance companies save a bundle on what would have been ongoing medical treatment? How much would the government gain if it stopped paying social security, Medicare, or Medicaid a few months early? [it could actually be years earlier]. How much financial relief would pension systems see? Why was the proposed law to legalize assisted suicide [SB 220] written so loosely? Would vulnerable old people be encouraged to end their life unnecessarily early by those seeking financial gain?

Finally, there is the expansion issue. In Washington State, we have had informal "trial balloon" proposals to expand our law to non-terminal people. For me, the most disturbing one was in the Seattle Times, which is our largest paper. A column suggested euthanasia as a solution for people without funds in their old age, which could be any of us, say if the company pension plan went broke.**

Assemblyman Hernandez is right to be concerned about what could happen to his constituents if SB 128 is passed.

Don't let California make Washington and Oregon's mistake. Urge your legislators to vote "NO" on SB 128.

* Margaret Dore is a former Law Clerk to the Washington State Supreme Court and the Washington State Court of Appeals. She is a former Chair of the Elder Law Section of the ABA Family Law Committee. She also worked for a year with the United States Department of Justice. She is president of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia. To learn more, see: www.margaretdore.com and www.choiceillusion.org.

** Jerry Large, "Planning for old age at a premium," The Seattle Times, March 8, 2012 ("After Monday's column, . . . a few [readers] suggested that if you couldn't save enough money to see you through your old age, you shouldn't expect society to bail you out. At least a couple mentioned euthanasia as a solution.") (Emphasis added).