Subversive Strategies to Sell Assisted Suicide.

Dr Jacqueline Harvey

By Dr Jacqueline Harvey

The numbers don’t lie. In spite of masterful public relations campaigns to suggest otherwise, the assisted suicide movement has an abysmal record trying to legalize assisted self-destruction over the last 21 years. The suicide lobby has few victories to claim. Rather, they consistently fail at each of the strategies they employ to push their agenda. Lawmakers fail to pass assisted suicide bills 99% of the time, after lawmakers are educated of the dangers at public hearings. Ballot initiatives fail in nearly three-quarters of cases to win enough votes, even after propaganda campaigns with no public hearings. Even attempts to subvert lawmakers and voters altogether by courting judges to legislate from the bench have yielded few returns. 

Bolstered by deep pockets and a sympathetic media, we are led to believe that the assisted suicide movement is winning, when the track record shows overwhelming political failure spanning three decades.

Nowhere is it more clear how lethal education and scientific evidence are to the suicide lobby than by examining how many assisted suicide bills withstand the scrutiny of witness testimony. Since 1994, 175 bills have been introduced in 35 states and the District of Columbia and thus far, only one has prevailed. Vermont is the anomaly, the lone bill, passed in 2013 after 19 years of failed attempts to convince legislators, a success rate of .057%. Assisted suicide is an established loser with lawmakers, failing more than 99% of the time in statehouses in over 20 years. Death making does not fare well when subjected to public debate. Thus far in 2015, 25 states and the District of Columbia have introduced legislation and most bills met their demise, by either lacking support to advance, devastated by testimony and withdrawn to address concerns or simply to spare a humiliating death. A few a late-filed bills still linger after failing to launch, but are unlikely to persevere through the process or manifest as an amendment to still-viable legislation. 

A team of assisted suicide lobbyists are attempting to resurrect California’s Senate Bill SB128 through a procedural ploy that subverts the committee that rejected it and placing it on the floor for a vote, in an affront to the legislative process but in keeping with the suicide lobby’s inability to legitimately pass bills and blatant overall lack of regard for law-making and public will. They routinely circumvent lawmakers to exploit voters, and even disregard both lawmakers and voters to forcibly impose their will through the courts due to an inability to pass assisted suicide through legitimate means. Only one bill has yet prevailed at all through the legislature. A record of 1 in 175 is evidence that assisted suicide is too illegitimate an act to obtain legitimate support.

Attempts to comfort lawmakers ill-at-ease after hearing testimony about the abuses and dangers of assisted suicide are not persuasive. Rather than address the evidence from testimony which gives lawmakers reservations, the suicide lobby have decided to create lawmakers out of the uniformed voter through ballot initiatives that do not require public hearings. Assisted suicide advocates have frequently appealed to the voters who are not informed by testimony and could be swayed by emotion and deceived by sanitized language designed to manipulate their vote. 

Word choice is critical. Polls can drop 20 points against assisted suicide by using the word suicide, so the assisted suicide movement crafted terms like “aid-in-dying” to present suicide as a helpful act, rather than what is: assisted self-destruction. Suicide lobbyists fared a bit better when trying to exploit the uninformed this way but still have an overall losing record. While the success rate is a bit higher than with the traditional route that forces legislators who vote to actually understand the issue, the lobby still has only two of seven wins to its credit since 1994. Two wins in Oregon and Washington out of seven attempts is only 28.57% success rate, 71.23% of these campaigns still failed. Even without the benefit of testimony decrying the dangers of assisted suicide, people simply do not like suicide. Regardless of how assisted suicide has been rebranded for the sole purpose of overcoming this aversion, nonetheless voters have seen right through it nearly three-quarters of the time.

When lawmakers can not be convinced nor the voting public, assisted suicide lobbyists turn to activist judges to overturn laws against their will. This is why the only other two states with assisted suicide bypassed both lawmakers and voters and imposed it by judicial decree in New Mexico and Montana. The Montana court didn't actually legalize assisted suicide, but gave doctors a "defense of consent." The New Mexico court decision is currently under appeal. (The New Mexico Court of Appeal overturned the assisted suicide decision on August 11).

Attempts to subvert all voters and legislatures through the United States Supreme Court failed twice in 1997 but still allowed for lower court activism to usurp the will of the people. This strategy has prevailed just twice. In fact, such an attempt just failed in California when the judge showed disdain for such an attempt to usurp the will of the people saying that assisted suicide is “best left to the legislature, not the courts” saying that this issue requires a “legislative fix, not a judicial nix.”  Clearly judicial activism like this failed attempt is yet another hit-or-miss strategy, as well as the fact that the assisted suicide movement still puts resources into introducing and lobbying for bills in spite of having failed 174 out of 175 times in 21 years. 

The longstanding failure of the assisted suicide lobby to sell their agenda to informed lawmakers, the inability to gain enough support with the average voter or find sympathetic judges or to supplant the law points simply to the inherent problems with assisted suicide. The persistence and market research to brand suicide as something different may have deceived some into believing they support assisted suicide, yet this has not translated into political success. Furthermore, attempts to quell public debate by bypassing the legislature has not stopped educational efforts, shown in Massachusetts in 2012 to change polling from 65% in favor and 19% opposed to the ballot measure being defeated on election night. 

With three distinct strategies and three decades and only five state laws affected (two of which were are affront to the will of the people) the assisted suicide lobby simply does not reflect the political climate of the United States, in spite of efforts to manipulate public opinion. They may be relentless in their attempts to impose suicide on society but equally relentless attempts to stop them tend to always succeed.

Jacqueline C. Harvey is a public-policy scholar with Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International. She has a Ph.D. in public administration and policy and focuses on end-of-life legislation at the state level.

Washington State (2014) assisted suicide report: no information on 27 deaths.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In 2014, 126 people reportedly died by assisted suicide in Washington State. This is up by 6% from 119 assisted suicide deaths in 2013, a 43% increase from 83 assisted suicide deaths in 2012.

According to the annual report, there were 176 lethal prescriptions written resulting in 126 assisted suicide deaths, 17 deaths from other causes, 27 deaths from an unknown cause and 6 people remain alive.

The annual report states that they do not know if the 27 deaths from "unknown causes" resulted from assisted suicide and they do not know the status of the lethal prescriptions.

In the Netherlands up to 23% of the assisted deaths are not reported. In Belgium the percentage of unreported assisted deaths is even higher.

Thus, it would not be surprising if 20% of the assisted suicide deaths in Washington State were not reported.

A broader number of illnesses are leading to assisted suicide. The Washington State report indicated that assisted deaths from other illnesses tripled. The report did not list what other illnesses represented but in Oregon other illnesses includes diabetes.

The "safeguard" restricting lethal drugs to people who are terminally ill (within six months of death) may not be closely followed. The annual report states that: 1 person in 2009, 1 person in 2010, 1 person in 2011 and 4 people in 2013 who received lethal drugs may be alive today.

Dangerously, when the status of the participant is unknown, then the status of the lethal drugs is also unknown.

These people may not have died by assisted suicide, but how safe is it for people to have lethal prescriptions in their homes?

The Seattle weekly reported that there were more women than men who died by assisted suicide. According to the annual report 96 (57%) of the assisted suicide deaths were women.

When Jeannette Hall asked for assisted suicide 15 year ago in Oregon but received supportive care, she chose to receive treatment for cancer rather than lethal drugs. Jeannette Hall is happy to be alive today.

When people receive good end-of-life care (physical, psychological and emotional care), they do not seek death by lethal drugs.

Assisted suicide is a form of abandonment. It is a tragic end for people seeking help.

• Washington State: 43% increase in assisted suicide deaths in 2013.

Healthy woman who dies by assisted suicide in Switzerland was likely depressed.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg

International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In September 2008, Lady Warnock, one of Britain's leading moral philosophers stated in an interview that:

Pensioners in mental decline are "wasting people's lives" because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain. 

She insisted that there was "nothing wrong" with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society. 

She hoped people will soon be "licensed to put others down" if they are unable to look after themselves.

The recent case of a physically healthy 75-year-old retired British nurse who died by assisted suicide in Switzerland further opens the door to pressure on the older people to die when she stated in her blog:

I have always suspected that an ideal shelf life for many people is about 70 years. 

I am not a psychiatrist or a mental health professional, but Gil Pharoah, even though she states that she is not depressed, seems likely to be depressed when she stated in her blog:

I can no longer walk the distances I used to enjoy so the happy hours spent exploring the streets of London are just a memory now. 

I cannot do the garden with the enthusiasm I once had and I find fifteen minutes is more than enough time spent weeding or digging. Even that short time can result in a day on the sofa or a visit to the osteopath. 

My tinnitus is a big distraction. My hearing loss is helped by using hearing aids, but the tinnitus seems to enjoy competition, and seems to increase in volume, to meet the increased external noise, so I find it impossible to talk in a group of more than four people, and often have to activate the subtitles on the TV. I do not enjoy the carnivals like Notting Hill or Gay Pride which I once so loved. 

I do not have any desire to travel any more –there is nowhere I want to visit enough to spend hours in an aeroplane or airport. 

I have always loved cooking but I find it an effort now and prefer to have a couple of friends for lunch rather than a large late dinner party. Not to mention the hundred and one other minor irritations like being unable to stand for long, carry a heavy shopping bag, run for a bus, remember the names of books I have read, or am reading, or their authors. 

And I have a number of aches and pains which restrict my pleasure in life generally although none are totally incapacitating.

John Southall, Pharoah's life partner, stated to ITV news that:

I had plenty of notice, so it's not like it is perhaps for most couples when one dies unexpectedly. 

Gill has always said she would never grow old. Her longest-standing friends say when she was in her thirties she said fifty would be enough. And then she said as time went on, sixty. Then it became seventy. And she got to seventy and started taking it more seriously.

These statements represent a dreariness towards living that is likely related to depression. Depression symptoms and warning signs include:

• Feelings of helplessness and hopelessness,
• Loss of interest in daily activities,
• Loss of energy,

Pharoah also exhibited signs of suicidal ideation, a symptom of depression by exhibiting:

• An unusual pre-occupation with death and dying,
• Talking about killing or harming one-self,
• Saying this like "everyone would be better off without me" or "I want out",
• A sudden switch from being extremely depressed to acting calm and happy.

If you are having difficulties with suicidal thoughts contact Your Life Counts.

Pharoah did not need suicide assistance, she needed good psychological care for what was likely a case of depression.

When further analyzed, this assisted suicide case should result in less support for assisted suicide when the House of Commons in Britain debates an assisted suicide bill next month.

Last year, a healthy Italian woman died at a Swiss suicide clinic because she was unhappy about how she looked. In April 2013, an Italian man died at a Swiss suicide clinic after receiving a wrong medical diagnosis.

Out-of-control reasons for assisted suicide illuminate danger

This article was published by OneNewsNow on August 6, 2015

By Charlie Butts

Switzerland exemplifies why experts on physician-assisted suicide believe the solution is to not legalize it in the first place.

Alex Schadenberg

A 75-year-old retired nurse from the United Kingdom was in excellent health but decided she didn't want to grow any older - so she traveled to Switzerland last month, visited a suicide clinic, and died on July 21. Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition tells OneNewsNow that recent incident is not an isolated case.

“There was a case of cousins who were both elderly and who were living together, and they decided they just didn't want to live anymore so they went to Switzerland,” he describes. “There was the case of the guy from Italy who had a wrong medical diagnosis. He died by assisted suicide in Switzerland. No one bothered to check the medical records. And then there's the case of a woman from Italy who just decided she didn't like how she looked anymore.”

Schadenberg points to these cases to illustrate the out-of-control concept of assisted suicide, which he says is the logical end of permitting someone to cause your death. Proponents would call it freedom, but Schadenberg says that's not true at all.

“So once you open the door, once you say it's okay to cause somebody's death, the only question that remains is Under what circumstances is it OK?” he says. “That's all that's left to decide. And so in Switzerland, the [list of allowable circumstances] just continues to expand, as it has in Belgium, the Netherlands, and even somewhat in Oregon.”

Schadenberg says the only way to prevent similar occurrences elsewhere is to not legalize the practice to begin with.

California Prohibition Against Assisted Suicide is Constitutional.

This article was published by Choice is an Illusion on August 1, 2015.

Margaret Dore

By Margaret Dore Esq., MBA

A California trial court has upheld the constitutionality of that state's criminal statute prohibiting assisted suicide, which states:

Every person who deliberately aids, or advises, or encourages another to commit suicide, is guilty of a felony.

Penal Code § 401

The court's reasoning is contained in a 19 page "Ruling on Demurrer," filed on July 24, 2015. The ruling uses the term, "Aid in Dying" to mean physician-assisted suicide. The term also means euthanasia. The court states in part:

Since "Aid in Dying" is quicker and less expensive, there is a much greater potential for its abuse, e.g,, greedy heirs-in-waiting, cost containment strategies, ímpulse decision-making, etc. Moreover, since it can be employed earlier in the dying process, there is a substantial risk that in many cases, it may bring about a patently premature death. For example, consider that a terminally ill patient, not in pain but facing death within the next six months, may opt for “Aid in Dying”' instead of working through what might have been just a transitory period of depression. Further, "Aid in Dying" creates the possible scenario of someone taking his life based upon an erroneous diagnosis of a terminal illness illness, which was, in fact, a mis-diagnosis that could have been brought to light by the passage of time. After all, doctors are not infallible. 

Furthermore, "Aid in Dying" increases the number and general acceptability of suicide, which could have the unintended consequence of causing people who are not terminally ill (and not, therefore, even eligible for "Aid in Dyíng") to view suicide as an option in their unhappy life. For example, imagine the scenario of a bullied transgender child, or a heartsick teenaged girl whose first boyfriend just broke up with her, questioning whether life is really worth living. These children may be more apt to commit suicide in a society where the terminally ill are routinely opting for it, The message society needs to send to children must be that suicide is not an option for them; widespread "Aid in Dying," i.e., assisted suicide, may blur that message to immature minds. ('When grandma was in pain and dying, she just committed suicide. Why shouldn't I? My life is s-o-o-o painful."). Even though suicide (as opposed to assisted suicide) ís legal in California, the State has an important interest to ensure that people are not influenced to kill themselves," (Donaldson, at p. 1623.) 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for youth between the ages of 10 and 24, suicide is the third leading cause of death claiming almost 4,600 lives eaoh year. A nationwide survey of youth in grades 9-12 in public and private schools in the United States found that 16% of the students had reported having seriously considered suicide. (CDC website, March 10, 2015)

Ruling on Demurrer, pp. 8-9.

At this point, the plaintiffs are saying that they will appeal.

Margaret Dore is the President of Choice is an Illusion.

Philip Nitschke is deadly serious about comedy

This article was published by Mercatornet on August 4, 2015

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell, the director of Hope Australia.

Many a comedian fears “death on the stage”. Not loss of life, exactly, but that split second when a joke misfires and he loses the audience.

Jenny Kleeman, a journalist with The Guardian, has been following Australian euthanasia activist Philip Nitschke as he enters a new career as a stand-up comedian at the upcoming Edinburgh Comedy Fringe Festival in Scotland.

Much of her video report (above) comes from a workshop in London where Nitschke has been road-testing his show in front of members of Exit, his assisted suicide information group. Kleeman’s comments are telling: “Is Philip about to change the way we view the ‘right-to-die’ or is he about to ‘die on his feet’?”

As I watched the Exit crowd I found myself thinking of “the four Ws”, as many in the disability community would say. Indeed, the audience was “White, Well, Well off and Worried”. One participant interviewed parroted the Exit sales pitch: “I get some satisfaction that I’m in control of a situation that might otherwise be out of control.” It sounds convincing but, in reality, it is not about control; it’s about avoidance.

From what I saw of Nitschke’s performance, it seemed flat and forced. This surprised me. I have debated him several times and he has been incredibly funny. Maybe it’s not a good look for the No side of the debate to be laughing along with the opposition, but more than once I found myself holding my sides in laughter. Perhaps there’s a difference between incidental humour and pitching a gag.

But the most important reason for the change in tone may be the eleventh hour withdrawal of British comedian Mel Moon from Nitschke’s show. She was going to turn the awkward Australian doctor into a polished comic who would slay them in the aisles.

Mel contracted an incurable disease in 2010 after the birth of her second child. She was diagnosed with an endocrine disorder in 2013 at the age of 35. It was, in her own words, “an incurable disease that could kill me; any minute, any where, any day!” Still worse, the drugs she needs were not available on the British NHS and are, therefore, very expensive.

In January, in an ABC (Australia) story announcing her double act with Nitschke, Moon was frank about her situation:

"There was seemingly no positive outcome just more of the same until one day I'd die. Quality of life had gone, my relationship was almost over, I couldn't even hold my children as it hurt too much. I just thought one day, enough! I wanted to take back control so I contacted Exit (UK branch) to look at options, read his book and contacted him directly."

Without the advice of Nitschke, she would have committed suicide.

"(He) told me to keep going and try everything I could... when they offered me a non-FDA approved drug to try as a last resort; I said yes. Thankfully it's working for me and, though the old me is long gone I'm starting to grow affectionate towards the new me, even though I need a stupid amount of naps per day."

After learning that Nitschke was interested in stand-up comedy, the grateful comic suggested that they team up. “It was a pretty amazing offer. I couldn’t believe my luck really,” Nitschke said. They began to write a script based on Nitschke’s long experience with people who wanted his help in committing suicide. They even had a working title for the script, “Dying Laughing”.

But then something tragic happened. No, Mel didn’t die. Quite the opposite: she got better. So everything changed. She told The Guardian:

“I really wanted to work with Philip, but we are very different people. I was a very poorly person at one point; and, even though I’m not fully recovered, I’m a hell of a lot better than I ever was. I want to live now and I want to talk about living. 

“And it was a real conflict of interest because obviously their message is about the ‘right-to-die’ and ‘ways to die’ and I could see the makings of a workshop and Philip has clearly said it would resemble (a workshop) and I really didn’t want to be a part of a workshop.”

Perhaps that’s the reason Nitschke’s career as a comic is faltering.

As a doctor, he succeeded when people died. His failures were patients like Mel Moon who recovered their zest for living as soon as they felt a bit better.

Making failure your key performance indicator doesn’t work when you’re telling jokes. If your one-liners fall dead, you will be booed offstage. Deregistered as a doctor, defenestrated as a comic: it’s a sad end to Philip Nitschke’s professional life.

Healthy retired British nurse dies by assisted suicide in Switzerland.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Switzerland suicide juggernaut rolls on, now claiming the life of a healthy retired nurse from the UK. Gill Pharoah, who was a supporter of euthanasia, told the media that she went to the Swiss suicide clinic to avoid old age.

The Care Not Killing Alliance called the suicide death:

Deeply troubling. 

It sends out a chilling message about how society values and looks after elderly people in the UK. 

It seeks the introduction of death on demand for those who fear becoming a burden, even if they are otherwise fit and healthy. This is an abhorrent development, but it reveals a truth that some who argue for a change in the law really believe there should be no safeguards or restrictions on assisted killing.

Pietro D'Amico died by
assisted suicide after
a wrong diagnosis

Cases, such as this one, appear to be promoted by the media to pressure the British government to legalize assisted suicide.

Previous Britons to die at a Swiss suicide clinic include a double assisted suicide of elderly cousins who feared living alone and an 83 year-old man with dementia, These cases are often connected to a suicide lobby leader who argues for the acceptance of assisted suicide of people who are not terminally ill.

Last year, a healthy Italian woman died at a Swiss suicide clinic because she was unhappy about how she looked. In April 2013, an Italian man died at a Swiss suicide clinic after receiving a wrong medical diagnosis.

This case should result in less support for assisted suicide when the House of Commons in Britain debates an assisted suicide bill this fall. 

The disability rights group, Not Dead Yet - UK recently held a rally opposing the Marris assisted suicide bill.

Judgement day in SCC Canada decision revisited – disability discrimination to death.

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick

By Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick OBE, is the director of Hope Ireland.

February 6, 2015 was a disastrous day for Canadians with disabilities - not just for them - but for all disabled people everywhere, and all people made vulnerable by the fact that they are facing end-of-life decisions.

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) judgement writes euthanasia into law on the grounds of disability alone. That is archetypal disability discrimination – in this case, to death.

Disabled people must resist what is the biggest threat we have seen to our lives to date, written into a legal judgement. So must everyone else: this is about the kind of society we all want to live in.

Within the SCC judgment, there are deeply flawed assumptions about human life and living in general, and specifically about what it means to live with a disability. There are significant factual errors also.

Disabled people opposing the legalisation of euthanasia/assisted suicide have never doubted that some disabled people will reach a view that ‘they cannot go on like this’. But despair is not confined to those disabled people, or people who are gravely ill, or people who feel they have ‘lost everything’.

Why then single out disabled people as a ‘special group’ amongst all those who will consider taking their own lives at some point? Disabled people are not a ‘homogenous group’ – we reflect the whole cross-section of society (which is why it is wrong to speak of ‘the disabled’). So some disabled people will absorb and reflect the thinking of their time, of their communities, and simply accept that this very public, and very poor debate conducted in the media, must have some force. Others will reflect more seriously.

Most disabled people do not count their lives as ones of unmitigated or ‘irremediable’ suffering. Our despair comes, not from being disabled per se, but from the institutionalised discrimination we must battle on a daily basis, being excluded from living independently, bombarded on all sides with the idea that we are ‘less than fully-paid-up’ human beings, being forced into poverty, denied basic human rights. Such is the discrimination we face, based solely on the fact that we are disabled, and no more starkly than in having us ‘marked’ for euthanasia by the SCC decision in Canada.

There are terrible errors of fact in the SCC judgment too:

· The idea that anyone will be ‘forced’ to end their life prematurely - based only on a fear of becoming so incapacitated that they cannot end their own lives - is false. 

· Another myth is that even psychiatrists agree amongst themselves about what constitutes ‘capacity’. The idea that there is one assessment which will guarantee this person is ‘competent’ now – and will be so tomorrow and the next day, until the moment they die - is false. 

· Many people believe that their loved ones were left to die of starvation and thirst, ‘a most horrible death’. Neglect has meant many such deaths are real. But it is also true that when someone is actually dying, giving food and certain amounts of water, when their organs are failing, increases their final suffering from the human experience of dying. Good palliative care practice in such moments includes keeping the patient’s mouth hydrated with swabs. The proper titration of drugs eases pain. 

· So-called ‘advance directives’ are not helpful. Peer-reviewed research shows that people are more likely to express a wish to die post-operatively, and more likely to ask to die the more serious the operation. That ‘desire’ fades as the patient recovers. If a psychiatrist assesses someone post-operatively to have a clear and settled intention to die, they may be ‘right’. But if patients are assessed weeks or months later they often no longer wish to die. It would be too late for those who are already dead. Death removes all choices and the possibility of a change of mind.

But it is not only after major surgery that such thoughts run in patients’ minds: and yet it may not take so long to see things differently. 

Imagine a man having lived with a disability caused by trauma or disease, say for over forty years old, who has just been delivered a diagnosis of an incurable form of cancer. Is it not perfectly natural to be devastated? Is it not entirely understandable in such a moment to say ‘Ok, I’ve had enough now’ and to ask ‘What happens if I do not take the treatment?’

Is it also understandable that after the initial reaction the man remembers he will meet his daughter for dinner that evening and must consider how he will explain to her and his other children, his wife, his family, his friends that he will not even try to meet this last battle? Every suicide involves other people.

If the doctor reacts to the initial ‘I can’t go on’ with a shrug of the shoulders and says ‘It’s your choice. We have the means. It’s legal now.’ how will that help the terrible end-of-life decisions the man is now faced with?

If the doctor remains clear and gives information about the bodily processes which will take over, absent of treatment, and waits sympathetically, returns later to check the patient’s thought-processes, allows for shock and grief to pass – even the tiny bit of time necessary for some re-balancing in the man’s unbidden reactions - is this not a more compassionate response?

Evidence shows that the main reason people give for wanting to die is not to be a ‘burden on others’. It is hard to suffer; it can be harder to watch a loved one watching you suffer. That is a critical part of our human experience. Their sense of powerlessness, loss, grief, impending doom, their exhaustion, their very love, all play a part, mixed at times, worse one time than at another, confused and sometimes even unrecognised.

The SCC judgment also says:

The prohibition denies people…the right to make decisions concerning their bodily integrity and medical care…by leaving them to endure intolerable suffering, it impinges on their security of the person.

There is no definition of ‘intolerable suffering’. Certainly some people may hold to one decision as to another, but the lie in this court ruling, is that there is anything to be described as ‘bodily integrity’ or that it ever makes sense to say ‘It’s my body’ or any of the usual formulations of that idea. No-one can own their body – we can own a house or a coat or a car. The problem is that this looks like a meaningful sentence – it is actually nonsense. It is a corruption of the concept of ‘ownership’ which has come to be accepted without reflection. And yet on such nonsense are court rulings of such magnitude built.

So the real question always becomes – who is such a law for?

It is for the protection of doctors, family members, others who are willing to provide suicide assistance.

The majority of doctors do not want any part in ending the lives of their patients. The majority desire to ease suffering. So those who want to participate in taking the lives of other human beings must be forced to explain their motivations.

There are far too many nuances in human and family life to ever be clear who is influenced by their supposed loved ones to come to want die. But there are also those who feel they are acting genuinely from love and compassion. Is such a law for them too?

I hope that our first response to someone who says ‘I want to die’ is always to help him out of despair, verify and treat depression, succour him to a different perspective on his life, its value. I fear the hope is often in vain.

If someone with Spinal Muscular Atrophy[1] says ‘I despair of my life and my future’ why then is the (supposedly) humane response to put a ‘legitimising’ arm around her shoulder and say

‘Well, after all these years, you have done enough. We all understand why anybody in your situation, should want to die. We would, in your place. Look how it will ease your family’s pain and burden. So yes, absolutely, we will do everything we can to help you to commit suicide. We have a lethal dose of drugs waiting’?

What about her husband, her family, her friends, her job?

That reaction and it may indeed sometimes be (mistakenly) thought of as one of simple human compassion is based solely on discrimination towards disabled people as disabled people. The condescension in it is worst of all.

That’s where the dangers lie. As we keep saying, it is not the fact that individuals should ever reach a decision to die that is at stake here: it is the consequences of legalising such a reaction to the decision that matters.

The false belief that has taken root is that suicide is (still) bad but euthanasia/assisted suicide is good, especially for disabled people who ‘should want to die.’

[1] As Baroness Jane Campbell, the longest survivor in Britain with SMA, has pointed out, the proposed legislation puts her ‘in the waiting room’ so that one day when she is feeling low what would stop any doctor from responding to her request to die? (House of Lords debate, Hansard 17 July 2014 – I paraphrase only a little for the sake of brevity).

• Opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide based on evidence of disability discrimination.
• Jane Campbell: Assisted suicide could lure me into the grave.
• SCC assisted suicide decision is irresponsible and dangerous.
• Opposing the Supreme Court of Canada assisted death decision.

Criticisms of panel studying assisted suicide unfounded.

This article was published by Advocate Daily.

Canadian government consultation on legislative options for Assisted Dying begins.

Hugh Scher

Concerns of bias in a panel appointed to lead efforts in dealing with the Supreme Court of Canada’s historic lifting of the prohibition against assisted suicide are unfounded, given that the fundamental issue of whether the practice should be decriminalized has already been decided, says Toronto health and human rights lawyer Hugh Scher.

The panel, appointed by the Harper government, will be led by Dr. Harvey Max Chochinov, an international leader in palliative care and the study of dignity at the end of life. His expertise and qualifications are unparalleled anywhere in the world, says Scher.

Dr. Harvey Chochinov

His fellow panellists are disability rights expert Catherine Frazee, professor emeritus at Ryerson University and former Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and Benoit Pelletier, an expert in constitutional law at the University of Ottawa and former Quebec cabinet minister, reports the National Post.

Both Chochinov and Frazee were expert witnesses called by the Canadian government to give evidence and reports in the Carter assisted suicide case that eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. A review of the decisions by all levels of court in the Carter case praise the expertise and evidence led by these two witnesses, which was virtually unchallenged at trial.

Catherine Frazee

The panel will conduct online consultations with Canadians and key stakeholders on possible options to the high court’s ruling and report back to the government by late fall, likely after the October federal election, says the report.

The group will focus on which forms of assisted dying should be permitted — assisted suicide, where a doctor prescribes a lethal dose of a drug the patient takes herself; voluntary euthanasia, or death by lethal injection — eligibility criteria and safeguards to protect a doctor’s “freedom of conscience” not to participate against his or her moral or religious objections, reports the Post. Whether assisted suicide is health care or medical treatment, or whether it should be separated from medical treatment, is a serious issue that will need to be canvassed by the panel in light of feedback from the public and expert stakeholders.

Benoit Pelletier

Scher, a well-known voice in the end-of-life care debate, has acted as counsel to The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition in several high-profile cases including Rasouli v. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2011 ONCA 482 (CanLII); Cuthbertson v. Rasouli, 2013 SCC 53, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 341; Bentley v. Maplewood Seniors Care Society, 2014 BCSC 165 (CanLII); Bentley v. Maplewood Seniors Care Society 2015 BCCA 91; Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 BCSC 886 (CanLII); Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 BCCA 435 (CanLII); and Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5.

“The formation of the panel is a responsible and sensible approach in terms of giving the government the opportunity to hear from Canadians, stakeholders and experts from all sides as to the various difficulties and challenges that are sure to be encountered through any system that seeks to decriminalize assisted suicide and impose a level of safeguards to enforce the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada,” Scher tells AdvocateDaily.com. 

“In that vein, I would say that this panel displays a level of expertise that is of the highest quality in the country. Dr. Harvey Chochinov is known the world over as one of the leaders in palliative care and the study of dignity at the end of life and he’s generally regarded as one of the world’s leading experts on that fundamental topic. Catherine Frazee is a leader in the disability rights movement and has been for years. Her depth of knowledge and understanding of these issues spans decades.”

Constitutional considerations, says Scher, will be extremely important as the panel begins its work.

“Given the medical, human rights and constitutional background that each of these panel members collaboratively bring to the table, I believe that they are extraordinary choices to facilitate a discussion and dialogue with Canadians on all sides of this issue relative to the considerations that should go into the application of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the formation of a law that seeks to give effect to that ruling,” he says. 

“One must remember that the issue of the decriminalization of assisted suicide has been determined by the Supreme Court, so these panel members are not being called upon to advocate for one position or another on the issue. The issue has been determined. What’s at issue now is how to give effect to and implement this ruling in a way that accords with both the terms of the ruling and the concerns of stakeholders on all sides.”

Scher calls any attempts to impugn the panelists’ credibility “significantly misplaced.”

They should be seen as advisors, not decision-makers, he says.

“Their role is to facilitate the receipt of cross-country feedback and discussion relative to what should be implemented in order to give effect to the Supreme Court ruling, including with respect to such matters as ensuring the voluntariness, consent and capacity of people seeking an assisted suicide,” says Scher. 

“The panel will also take into consideration the need to protect against the risks of abuse, particularly for vulnerable communities and members of society including, most notably, people with disabilities and seniors. They will have to ensure that the mechanisms put into place to give effect to Supreme Court ruling are in keeping with the utmost considerations of dignity, equality and respect for the individual, the common good and the public interest.”

While it’s unclear at this time which government may ultimately be receiving the panel’s recommendations, “any government of any political stripe would benefit from the advice and recommendations of a panel of this level of expertise and prominence with their depth of knowledge, insight and facilitation skills,” says Scher.

“They are there as a facilitating messenger in order to advise. They are not there to make any particular decisions, especially on the fundamental issue of decriminalization of assisted suicide, which the Supreme Court itself has already determined.”

In February, the Supreme Court struck down the Criminal Code prohibitions that ban physician-assisted suicide in certain express circumstances and gave Parliament one year to legislate new rules to give effect to the ruling.

Glyn Davies - Assisted suicide: This is a road down which we should not go.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Glyn Davies, the MP from Montgomeryshire UK, responded to Rob Marris’s Assisted Dying (no 2) Bill in an article that was published today by Politics Home in the UK.

Davies, focusses on the effect of legalising assisted suicide in the UK. For instance Davies responds to Marris's assertion that assisted suicide is happening already. From the article.

Mr Marris will be aware that breaches of the existing law in this area are rare. Less than 20 cases a year cross the desk of the DPP throughout the whole of England and Wales. However, he tells us that "terminally ill people are ending their own lives" and that "some doctors are complicit in hastening patients' deaths". 

Glyn Davies MP

The claim about terminally ill patients ending their own lives rests on an extrapolation of data from just seven out of 139 health authorities. Even so, the number is dwarfed by the death rate from legalised assisted suicide in Oregon. Oregon's death rate from this source last year is the equivalent to over 1,500 assisted suicide deaths in England and Wales if we had a similar law here. And it is Oregon's law that is the model for Mr Marris' bill. 

As for the claim that doctors are already engaging in hastening patients' deaths, I can do no better than quote the words of Sir Graeme Catto, Chair of the campaigning group Dignity in Dying (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society). He told Mr Marris' meeting last week that "that is highly unlikely" because "doctors now work in teams and it is very hard to get one-to-one contact". In fact, Sir Graeme was only confirming independent research, which has concluded that covert hastening of deaths of patients by doctors in the UK is "rare or non-existent"

Davies then points out that Marris's assisted suicide bill is based on arbitrary criteria. From the article.

... The essential question before Parliament is this: do you want to license doctors to involve themselves in deliberately bringing about the deaths of some of their patients? Most doctors don't want that. 

All these 'assisted dying' bills rest on purely arbitrary criteria - like terminal illness (but not chronic illness or disability) and assisted suicide (but not administered euthanasia). Their boundaries are irrational and therefore permeable. That is why so many people are worried about the thin end of the wedge. This is a road down which we should not go.

Liz Carr

Liz Carr, who is an actress and disability rights leader stated at the Not Dead Yet UK rally two weeks ago:

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. 

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. 

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.

This is a road down which we should not go.

• Britain to debate assisted suicide bill.
• Summary of Liz Carr's speech at Not Dead Yet UK rally.
• Assisted suicide for disabled people - democracy in Britain?
• Experts in care of the elderly speak out strongly against assisted suicide.

John Kelly (Second Thoughts) testimony opposing assisted suicide bill B21-38 in DC

This testimony was published on the Not Dead Yet website on June 23, 2015.

Chairperson Alexander, Members of the Committee on Health and Human Services:

John Kelly in Connecticut.

I am the director of Massachusetts Second Thoughts: People with Disabilities Opposing the Legalization of Assisted Suicide. We were the progressive voice in Massachusetts that helped defeat the assisted suicide ballot question in 2012, and again in the legislature last year. Our opposition is based in universal principles of social justice that apply to everyone, whether disabled or not. Drawing on those same principles, we supported the medical marijuana ballot question in 2012 of the relief it brings to many disabled people.

We chose our name Second Thoughts because we find that many people, once they delve below the surface appeal of assisted suicide, have “second thoughts” and oppose it. In Massachusetts a month before the election, 68% of voters supported the ballot question. But just as closer looks in Massachusetts – and this year in Maryland, California, Connecticut, among other states –– led to a considered rejection of assisted suicide, we urge you to reject B21-38 because of the real-world threats it poses.

If this bill passes, innocent people stand to lose their lives without their consent, through mistakes and abuse. There are no safeguards now in place or ever proposed that can prevent this tragically irreversible outcome.

Doctors misdiagnose and give incorrect prognoses, frequently. In the disability community, we have many members who have been given a terminal diagnosis, some since birth, some more than once. One Second Thoughts member, John Norton of Florence Massachusetts, was diagnosed with ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) in his first year of college – in 1955. He was told he would die in 3 to 5 years.

As a very physical person, a high school athlete, John was devastated by the diagnosis. As he began to lose function, he wrote:

I became depressed and was treated for my depression. If instead, I had been told that my depression was rational and that I should take an easy way out with a doctor’s prescription and support, I would have taken that opportunity.

Then something happened that doctors are never able to predict: six years after diagnosis, the progression of his disease stopped. Today, his condition is about the same. He is married, with three children and a grandchild. Now retired, he writes:

We have wonderful friends. I enjoy singing tenor in amateur choruses. I help other people by working as a volunteer driver. I will be 75 years old this coming September [2012]. If assisted suicide or euthanasia had been legal, I would have missed the bulk of my life and my life yet to come.

With legalized assisted suicide, this incorrect information would have cut short John Norton’s life. Studies have shown that 15-20% of the supposed “terminally ill” outlive their prognosis, leading to our current situation whereby hospice programs discharge 200,000 people per year. Every year in Oregon, reports show people living longer than a year after the suicide request.

Elder abuse, typically by adult children and caregivers, is an epidemic in every state. It is estimated that one out of every 10 people over the age of 60 is abused every year. With assisted suicide legal, there will inevitably be opportunities for foul play. Someone in line to inherit estate proceeds will be able to witness the written request for assisted suicide, pick up the prescription from the pharmacy, and even administer the lethal dose themselves – who would know? Since providers or disinterested witnesses are often not present at the death, we can’t know how people are actually dying. Last year in Oregon, 80% of program participants had no provider present when the drugs were administered.

Proponents talk a lot about pain and suffering, and cite polls that ask respondents whether they support doctors prescribing lethal medication to people about to die in unbearable pain. But the talk about pain is part of a simple bait and switch: terrify people with the prospect of dying in unbearable agony, then implement a program that prescribes suicide for mental distress.

The leading reasons for suicide requests cited in the Oregon reports by prescribing doctors are all about mental distress: feelings of lost autonomy, missing valued activities, feelings of lost dignity, distress about incontinence, and feeling like a burden. Pain (and fear of pain) is a trailing indicator.

Assisted suicide actually has much to do with the views of other people. Dignity, never defined in any of these bills, is defined as “the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect” – of other people. When people feel that their very existence is burdensome to others, they are experiencing lack of respect. Proponents exploit this fear by threatening people that their legacy will be memories of debility rather than accomplishment.

Disabled people reject these notions as insulting and dangerous. Dignity is inherent. For these reasons and more, every leading national disability rights group that has taken a position on the matter has gone on record in opposition. And that is why 12 Massachusetts disability rights organizations have come out against legalized assisted suicide.

Instead of creating a new medical treatment called “death with dignity,” let’s ensure that people have the in-home supports necessary to live in dignity. Old, ill, and disabled people deserve care that does not burden family and caregivers, care that includes mental health support for feelings of demoralization and depression.

Finally, opponents of assisted suicide have long warned against the incrementalist strategy of proponents to expand the reach of Oregon-style laws. We don’t need to cite the example set by countries like Belgium and the Netherlands (euthanasia for depression, fear of blindness, even tinnitus, not to mention the “mercy killing” of disabled newborns) to lend credence to these warnings. We can simply point to the proposals and statements by true believers at home.

John Kelly debated Marcia Angell

A broader agenda was revealed by Oregon law co-author Barbara Coombs Lee last fall at a Connecticut forum. As the online journal CTNewsJunkie reported, “Coombs Lee also said the [Oregon-style] legislation would exclude people with dementia and cognitive declines, since they could not make the choice for themselves. ‘It is an issue for another day but is no less compelling,'” she said. Coombs Lee is now the president of the group Compassion & Choices, the saccharine rebranding of the old Hemlock Society.

Leading Massachusetts advocate for assisted suicide Dr. Marcia Angell now writes in favor of euthanasia. In Oregon, a bill has been submitted to extend the meaning of “terminally ill” from 6 months to 12. Once doctor-prescribed suicide is defined as a “benefit,” it is only natural to extend that benefit to more and more people, for more and more time.

I urge you to say no to legalized assisted suicide, now and forever.

John B. Kelly
Boston, MA
JKelly@NotDeadYet.org

Banned execution drug is used to kill people with disabilities in Belgium.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On Friday I published an article on a study concerning 100 requests for euthanasia for psychiatric reasons in Belgium.
Lieve Thienport, the psychiatrist who approved the euthanasia death of "Laura" the 24-year-old physically healthy Belgian woman who lives with suicidal thoughts is also the psychiatrist who examined the 100 people who requested euthanasia in this study.

A Medical Daily report, concerning the same study also focussed on the drugs that are used for euthanasia in Belgium.

The  Medical Daily report explains that the euthanasia drug of choice in Belgium was banned by the European Union to stop executions in the United States. From the article:

To end their lives usually at home or in a hospital, the majority used sodium thiopental, the researchers reported. This barbiturate, ... is commonly known as the first of three lethal injection drugs administered to American prisoners who are executed under a death sentence. In 2011, Hospira Inc., the only company still making the drug at that time, stopped production at its Italian plant when the European Union banned export of the barbiturate as a way to end executions in the United States. However, this same drug has been chosen as Belgium’s standard protocol for euthanasia. 

The study indicates that people with disabilities are far more likely to die by euthanasia for psychiatric reasons. According to the study euthanasia for psychiatric reasons included people with Autism and people with eating disorders. From the study:

Most of the patients suffered from a treatment-resistant mood disorder (n=58, including 48 with major depressive disorder and 10 with bipolar disorder) and/or a personality disorder (n=50), while 29 patients had both. 

Other psychiatric diagnoses included post-traumatic stress disorder (n=13), schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders (n=14), anxiety disorders (n=11), eating disorders (n=10), substance use disorders (n=10), somatoform disorders (n=9), pervasive developmental disorders (n=8; including 7 with Asperger syndrome—an autism spectrum disorder (ASD)—and 1 with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), obsessive–compulsive disorders (n=7), dissociative disorders (n=7) and complicated grief (n=6), among others.

People with disabilities are right to be concerned about euthanasia.

• Study: 100 requests for euthanasia for psychiatric reasons in Belgium.
• A healthy 24-year-old Belgian woman to die by euthanasia.
• Belgium euthanasia: Treatment for depression.
• Depressed woman dies by euthanasia in Belgium.