Belgian prisoners denied euthanasia, for now.

Thjs article was published on the Bioedge on November 21.

By Michael Cook

Frank Van Den Bleeken

Belgian serial rapist and murderer Frank Van Den Bleeken, who was serving a life sentence, sparked a controversy by asking for euthanasia in 2014. The government at first granted his request and the bureaucratic machine began whirring. However, it quickly backtracked and placed him in a specialised psychiatric unit where he could get better care.

In the wake of his highly-publicised request, 15 other prisoners have asked for euthanasia in Belgium on the grounds that they have unbearable psychological suffering. This week the head of the country’s euthanasia commission declared that they are not eligible. Dr Wim Distelmans told De Morgen that:

The unbearable suffering that these prisoners describe is due in large part to the context (ie, prison) and is not the result of an incurable disease … We have advised the interested parties that they are not within the framework and conditions provided by law.

However, this may not be the end of the story. De Morgen reported that better psychiatric treatment would be made available to some or all of the 15 prisoners at the Sint-Kamillus university psychiatric center in Bierbeek. "If the patients maintain their request for euthanasia, then we'll reconsider," Dr Distelmans said.

After the apparently unstoppable expansion of euthanasia requests, Belgium may be applying the brakes, possibly in response to adverse international publicity. Apart from denying euthanasia to the prisoners, a prominent euthanasia doctor, Dr Mark Van Der Hoey, was recently charged with breaking the law after he was filmed euthanasing a patient in an Australian documentary. It was the first time since euthanasia was legalised in Belgium that a doctor has been charged, let alone convicted.

More information on this story:

• Stay of execution (euthanasia) for Belgian prisoner.
• As the Belgian Euthanasia Turns.
• Belgian rapist to be euthanized.

Disability advocate: Abandoned, neglected and brokenhearted after Canadian Assisted Death decision

Right Honourable Justin Trudeau

Prime Minister of Canada

November 17 2015

“Abandoned, Neglected, brokenhearted I am left crying myself to sleep” - What the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Carter case has meant to me and many other Canadians.”

Dear Prime Minister

When I was a child my family placed me in a “home” for kids like me – I had disabilities because of cerebral palsy. Over the course of my six years stay I felt totally abandoned by my family. One question would often fill my thoughts, “does anyone really care?” In the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Carter, decriminalizing euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, I feel that same abandonment and again the question circles my mind after all these years – “does anyone really care?”

I have been abandoned by several key sectors of society -  among these are, the Canadian Supreme Court, the Canadian Government, Canadian Law, the Canadian Medical Association, the Church in Canada and the Canadian Media.

You may ask why a sense of abandonment and this would be my answer. These sectors were my life supports on which, I knew as a Canadian living with disabilities, I could depend upon to look after me, uphold my rights, to life, to support, care and protection. Now I fear that my "life supports" have been "turned off."

Now with the Supreme Court decision in Carter, I have lost my confidence in these institutions to protect me. I was told recently, “Steven you should not go to the doctor alone – make sure you have someone to go with you.” So what am I left to do – who will hold my hand? The sense of abandonment, my sense of grief and disappointment is so palpable it is like a yoke on my shoulders. Where do I go now, to whom do I speak?

I want to live even though some people may not find my life worth living. I am grateful to all of the key sectors that I mentioned for the life I have had so far. But when the law allows physicians to kill patients and those with consciences are forced to kill or pressured out of medicine. When people who want to kill themselves are exulted in the media to the point where we change the law and the voice of those of us who wish to live is disregarded and silenced – what am I to think?

Over the last 25 years, I have spoken about three key issues facing people with disabilities, equality, value and acceptance. I have tried to communicate to all Canadians that these three things must be protected under Canadian law to keep us all safe. People like me have always known that we were just tolerated, not really accepted, had no value and no equality in the eyes of many Canadians. Society built us ramps to buildings but not to Canadian hearts.

The Supreme Court judgement, added to the betrayal and neutrality of key sectors of society that has reinforced the concept of out of sight, out of mind,  and now out of the way!

That is why I feel so deeply abandoned because the Carter decision proves I have no equality no value or acceptance. If my choice to live can be circumvented, in my best interests of course - where is my autonomy? Who gave anyone the right to take away my autonomy?Choices are made for me every day. Where I may live, how much money I receive and now finally, with these changes, when I will die.

They will provide various reasons, such as economics, dependency, pain and suffering or quality of life and then they will decide. Society will decide for me, based on what it thinks not what I think. After all Canadian society knows what is best for me – who would want to live like Steven anyway. I shout but no one wants to hear. The Carter ruling establishes two types of Canadians, those upon whom we confer equality, value and acceptance and those, like me, to whom they will be withheld.

There is great talk about being more inclusive, a kinder and gentler Canada – is that just rhetoric – or does that really include the elderly, disabled the marginalized? Or have we become so cold that we will no longer provide the essentials of human life, the supports needed like health care and financial aid to those who require such assistance. I feel as though I need to apologize for being born with a disability, as though somehow it is my fault.

Someone recently said that because the government is our provider the key sectors of society do not want to look after us anymore. Why give him healthcare? Why provide for or assist him we certainly do not want to extend his future? Is this because I am different, because I need a hand, a lift up?

What we are about to do, allowing physicians to kill patients or helping them to commit suicide, is so dangerous, so horrific, so detrimental to Canadian values.

It is said that how a nation treats its most vulnerable is the measure of that nation. Please speak up for my right to live. Our future as Canadians must include the vulnerable and marginalized. As a man living with disabilities I have no voice, and unless I want to kill myself I am closed out of Canadian media. Please ensure that all Canadians have a future – protect us from those doctors who will kill us, protect us from the media which asks you who would want to live like them? Defend us from the law which has been turned upside down and from government which threatens refusal to protect our lives.

Whatever happened to Canada the good? I am on a ledge right now will Canada pull me back or push me off?

Forever committed to making a stronger and more inclusive Canada and an advocate for the marginalized.

Yours sincerely,

Steven Passmore

404- 165 Queen Street South

Hamilton, Ontario L8P 4R3

(905) 529-9689

Previous articles by Steve Passmore:

• Supreme court is wrong on assisted suicide.
• Euthanasia undermines protections in law for me.
• People with disabilities are not disposable.
• I am concerned about my safety if euthanasia and assisted suicide were legal in Canada.

Canadian government will not seek advice from federal panel on assisted dying.

Media Release

The Canadian Press reported on November 14 that the new federal Liberal government will not be seeking advice from the federal panel on assisted dying that was appointed by the previous Conservative government. According to the Canadian Press:

A federal panel created in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling on assisted death will no longer be asked to make recommendations to the government and will now simply report on its consultations on the issue. 

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and Health Minister Jane Philpott say in a statement that along with the modified mandate, the date for the panel to make its report has been extended by a month to Dec. 15.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is concerned that the Federal government is planning to follow the recommendations of the one-sided panel that was appointed by the Ontario Provincial government that features Jocelyn Downie, Canada's leading pro-euthanasia academic and Maureen Taylor who describes herself as an advocate of assisted death.

Considering the investment in time and research by the panel and the many groups who presented to the panel on assisted dying and the potential for positive insight from the panel members based on their professional and personal experience EPC finds this decision to be short-sighted and motivated by partisan politics.

The panel was appointed by the previous federal Health and Justice Ministers is composed of Dr Harvey Max Chochinov, the Canada research chair in palliative care at the University of Manitoba who is the chair of the panel, Catherine Frazee, a former co-director of the Ryerson-RBC Institute for Disability Studies Research and Education and a former chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and Benoît Pelletier, a University of Ottawa law professor and former Quebec Liberal cabinet minister.

The new Liberal government is not forced to accept the recommendations of this panel but it is wrong for them not to consider the recommendations of this excellent panel.

• Canadian government appoints panel to examine euthanasia and assisted suicide.
• Provincial government appoints pro-euthanasia panel to devise euthanasia laws.
• Criticisms of panel studying assisted suicide unfounded.

For more information contact Alex Schadenberg at: 519-851-1434 or info@epcc.ca

Wesley Smith: Ten percent of elders are abused.

This article was published by Wesley Smith on his blog on November 14, 2015

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith.

There is a phenomenon in assisted suicide advocacy, I call it Euthanasia World, in which a terrible problem is discussed with nary a mention that it could impact decisions for assisted suicide.

 
For example, one day citizens of Euthanasia World wring their hands about HMOs cutting costs by reducing levels of care. But then, when they discuss assisted suicide, all doctors are committed professionals dedicated only to what is best for their patients!

 
This time it is elder abuse. The NEJM warns that 10 percent of older Americans are abused. From the “Elder Abuse" study:  

Physicians may find the evaluation and treatment of elder abuse unfamiliar and even uncomfortable, since it presents several challenges. 

First, victims may conceal their circumstances or be unable to articulate them owing to cognitive impairment. 

Second, the high burden of chronic illness in older people creates both false negative findings (e.g., fractures misattributed to osteoporosis) and false positive findings (e.g., spontaneous bruising misattributed to physical abuse) in the evaluation. For these and other reasons, screening for elder abuse and neglect has not been recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 

Third, cultural and language barriers may hinder the disclosure of abuse. 

Fourth, in some cases, a definitive determination that abuse is taking place may take weeks or months, and physicians may be required to intervene before such a determination has been made — a strategy that is not typically used in the management of medical conditions. 

Does anyone think such findings have no relevance to assisted suicide? 

But the denizens of Euthanasia World will ignore this study, and tell us that doctors can be trusted to discern whether assisted suicide requesters are being pressured or coerced. 

Know this: Assisted suicide legalization will lead to the ultimate elder abuse–pressured death, and all under the cover of law.

Netherlands euthanasia lobby pushes kill pill.

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Netherlands euthanasia lobby (NVVE) has renewed their push for a kill pill that would be made available, free of charge and upon request, to people who are 70 or older. 

In 2010, the Netherlands euthanasia lobby collected signatures supporting the "last will pill" for people over 70. According to a report in the Dutch News:

The NVVE now wants to discuss its ideas for an experiment with the health and justice ministries and with the Dutch doctors’ association KNMG. 

‘We see that society wants such a pill, particularly among the babyboom generation which is not afraid to speak its mind,’ NVVE director Robert Schurink told the NRC. ‘They want control over the end of their lives.’ 

At the moment, the NVVE helps people who do not want to live any longer access foreign suppliers who can help them buy the pills to do the job, the paper said.

The concept of the kill pill comes from a few "academics" who philosophically believe that death is the ultimate freedom. They really don't care that their philosophy threatens the lives of the many so a few academics can say - "I am free."

What about people who are living with situational depression, or for example someone who is grieving a lost spouse. Is it freedom to assist the suicide of someone who is living through the dark time of their life? No it is a form of social abandonment and the ultimate form of elder abuse.

It is bad enough that the Netherlands allow euthanasia, but to simply say - "Oh by the way I am tired of living, give me the kill pill" is a dangerous and callous response.

Emily "Laura" is a healthy 24 year-old who was approved to die by euthanasia in Belgium. Emily has chosen to live.

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Economist released a video on November 10 concerning Emily, a 24 year-old physically healthy woman who was approved for euthanasia for the reason of psychological suffering. The video is titled 24 & ready to die.

The 21 minute video (bottom of article) interviews Emily, her psychiatrist (Lieve Thienpont), her mother, and her friends. The video ends with Emily deciding not to go through with the lethal injection. 

It appears that the Economist was producing a pro-euthanasia video to justify Emily's death by euthanasia except that Emily changed her mind. The video concludes by trying to sell the viewers on the idea that Emily chooses not to die because she has a choice. In reality legal euthanasia has enabled death to be seen as a treatment for psychological pain, enabling her to die by lethal injection.

The greater question is how come Emily was approved for euthanasia? Was she experiencing unremitting suffering?

We first learned about Emily on June 19 in an article by Simone Maas that was published in the Belgian DeMorgen news concerning psychiatrist, Lieve Thienpont, who works with the Belgian euthanasia clinic, and had approved "Laura" for euthanasia. "Laura" was the name that Thienpont used to describe Emily. The article states that Laura is physically healthy but living with psychological pain. (google translated):

She has good friends, loves good coffee and theater. And she has felt that she wanted to die ever since childhood. Laura (24): "Life, that's not for me." This summer, euthanasia will end her life full of inner conflict, depression and self-destruction. 

I met the West Flemish Laura at the presentation of the book 'Libera me' euthanasia for psychological reasons. Writer Lieve Thienpont is one of the psychiatrists who gave Laura a positive opinion for euthanasia.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) responded by launching an online campaign asking people to Sign: A Letter of Hope to Laura. More than 12,500 people signed the Letter with many people offering a genuine concern for Laura.

What we learned from the Letter of Hope to Laura is that many people live with depression and similar psychological pain. Psychological pain is a common human condition. Death is not the answer to psychological pain.

The Economist video ends with Emily deciding to live, but Emily remains conflicted. We urge Emily to find a supportive place and to hold onto hope for better days.

• A Letter of Hope to Laura.
• Healthy 24-year-old Belgian woman to die by euthanasia.
• Healthy 24-year-old woman to be euthanized in Belgium.
• Belgium euthanasia: Treatment for depression.
• Euthanasia doctor justifies death for depressed people.

Canadian doctors have developed a new technique for treating brain tumors.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

One of the more devastating diagnosis, is to be told that you have a brain tumor. Brittany Maynard died by assisted suicide last year to avoid living with a brain tumor. California legalized assisted suicide in response to the Brittany Maynard campaign. 

Society needs to care for people, not kill them. Everyday improvements in medical technology provide new ways to treat devastating illnesses, such as brain tumors and Parkinsons. 

Researchers at Toronto's Sunnybrook hospital have developed a new technique for treating brain tumors. The difficulty with treating brain tumors is that the brain has a Brain Blood Barrier that naturally protects the brain but also makes it difficult to effectively target brain tumors for treatment. As reported by the Globe and Mail:

The hospital said it made history last week by using a “focused ultrasound” to breach the blood-barrier in the brain to treat patients. 

“The blood-brain barrier (BBB) has been a persistent obstacle to delivering valuable therapies to treat disease such as tumours,” says Dr. Todd Mainprize, principal investigator of the study and neurosurgeon in the Hurvitz Brain Sciences Program at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in a media release. 

“We are encouraged that we were able to temporarily open this barrier in a patient to deliver chemotherapy directly to the brain tumour.” 

The chemotherapy treatment begins with the patient being given injections of micro-bubbles or microscopic bits of air which circulate in the bloodstream. 

Researchers said they then use a state-of-the-art MRI-guided focused low-intensity ultrasound (sound waves) to target blood vessels in the BBB area near the tumour. 

This causes micro-bubbles to shake and temporarily rip holes in the BBB allowing medication to seep into the tumour.

This new treatment technique creates new hope for people with brain tumours and also for people who are living with Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. According to the Globe and Mail:

Scientists said the trial will include six to ten more patients over the coming months to make sure opening the BBB is safe to penetrate. 

The hope is that the new treatment will help patients suffering from brain cancer, Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease. 

“Breaching this barrier opens up a new frontier in treating brain disorders,” says Dr. Neal Kassell, chairman of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation. 

“We are encouraged by the momentum building for the use of focused ultrasound to deliver therapies for a number of brain disorders.”

California Assisted Suicide Opponents Blitz State with Petitions

For Immediate Release

In excess of one million signature forms are now being distributed to thousands of volunteers from all walks of life. StopAssistedSuicide.com

Media Contact: 

Steve Ruiz Communications assistant

Phone: 1-800-924-2490 or Email: info@seniorsagainstsuicide.org

LOS ANGELES, CA - In response to Governor Brown's signing of a controversial 'Right to Die' bill, assisted suicide opponents have launched a referendum to refer the measure to the public for re-examination.

"I have counseled many patients, and it is clear that all of us will face the famous 5 stages of grief at these times, as will our families. It has always been society's responsibility to help and accommodate those in this emotionally vulnerable situation," said Dr. Mark Hoffman, clinical psychologist and spokesperson for Coalition Against Assisted Suicide.

"Physical pain can be treated, but suicidal thoughts are a more subtle yet clear expression of 'psychological pain.' This 'alarm bell' of deeper depression must be assertively addressed. Offering suicidal patients poison in these situations is simply dismissive medicine. It is in direct violation of a physician's oath,"

Petitioners have 90 days to circulate and return 365,800 valid voter signatures by January 4, 2016 to the Secretary of State.

A largely volunteer effort, Hoffman said he will also be using professional petition gatherers. 

"We have an incredible army of volunteers that have come forward when they heard of Brown's signing, and more every day. But many have never done this before, so we want the professional assistance to make sure we do this right."

The same week Brown signed the controversial measure, he vetoed the so-called, "Right to Try" bill, which would have let similarly situated patients try medical treatments still in testing but unapproved by the FDA. "It is a cynical view of individual human beings and their situation," said Hoffman, "to dismiss and crush a person's hope by denying them access to cutting-edge and simultaneously reinforce and indulge feelings of emotional emptiness." The death measure had failed during normal session, but was manipulated into a new special session designed to address MediCAL costs. "Nice touch from a Governor not known for his thrift. But the fewer patients for MediCAL the better, eh?" quipped Hoffman.

The suicide opponents have established a website for, 'information and education on the issue' : stopassistedsuicide.com

Hoffman is optimistic of success. "Because we share those common emotions surrounding the death of a loved one, my experience is that everyone may initially be supportive of accommodating those emotions. But when they study the facts, that support rapidly drops.

"Indulging emotions without recognizing the full implications has always proved a dangerous course. When you are then authorizing medicine to be used to kill in order to satisfy those emotions, well that is quite literally a deadly course."

• California seniors group collecting signatures to overturn assisted suicide law.

The Coalition Against Assisted Suicide represents people of all backgrounds and faiths. We are alarmed at the very serious implications of authorizing medicine to be used against a patient. Professionals, patient's rights organizations, disability groups, churches and faith groups of all backgrounds are uniting to say, StopAssistedSuicide.com.

Coalition Against Assisted Suicide 'Stop ABX2-15' | 800 924-2490 

Commentary: Why disabled people like me fear assisted suicide

This article was published by Syracuse.com on November 6, 2015. The disability rights group, Not Dead Yet also republished this article.

Stephanie Woodward

By Stephanie Woodward

Having been born with a physical disability, I am all too familiar with the overwhelming number of people who feel that decisions should be made for me, not by me. I know the tactics used to coerce disabled people into doing what someone else thinks is best because they've been used on me. I am well aware of the "ableist'' notions that society holds – that having a disability is a tragedy, that we're a waste of resources and a burden on society, and that we're "brave" to live with our disabilities (which essentially means that most people would rather die than be "brave" and live with a disability like me).

We're often regarded as incapable of making our own decisions and unworthy of respect. However, when one disabled person announces they want to die, they're lauded in the press and on social media. Sara Myers, for example, has Lou Gehrig's disease and has received a slew of media attention for wanting assisted suicide because she began to experience disability. Media focused on Myers's use of a wheelchair and her need for assistance in showering and toileting to demonstrate why assisted suicide should be available to her. For full disclosure, I use a wheelchair and have needed assistance with both showering and toileting in my life, and I expect I'll need more assistance as I age. I take it very personally when media and society lists these as valid reasons to want to die.

With all of these negative stereotypes and stigmas against disabled people, combined with the praise a disabled person receives when they announce that they want to die, nothing scares me more than the legalization of assisted suicide. (David M. Rubin column, Oct. 30.)

Legalized assisted suicide has a disproportionate impact on disabled people. While everyone else receives suicide prevention, people with disabilities and certain illnesses and old people will receive a fast pass because our lives are viewed as less worthy.

Current legislation proposed in New York to legalize assisted suicide not only has no realistic way of protecting from mistake, coercion or abuse, but also lists no reporting requirements. This means that any doctor could prescribe a lethal dose and any person could administer that dose to kill a person, with medical confidentiality preventing any oversight. No independent witness is required during the death of an individual, so there's no way to ensure that the individual administered the lethal dose himself or herself. In a world where abuse of people with disabilities and seniors is rampant, this alone is cause for concern.

For example, an adult child of an ill 80-year-old woman could accompany her mother to the doctor to obtain the lethal dose, and then administer it without her mother's consent.

Situations like this have already happened.

Kate Cheney, an 85-year-old woman with early dementia, was brought to her doctor by her daughter to obtain a prescription for the lethal dose in Oregon where assisted suicide is legal. The doctor refused to write the prescription. Unfortunately, that did not prevent Ms. Cheney's death. Instead, Ms. Cheney's managed care provider found a different doctor to prescribe the lethal dose. This second doctor had Ms. Cheney undergo a psychiatric exam and found that Ms. Cheney lacked the capacity to make this decision, so the lethal dose was, again, not prescribed. Cheney's daughter became very angry and demanded that her mother undergo another evaluation. This psychologist deemed Cheney competent, but noted that Ms. Cheney's "choices may be influenced by her family's wishes and her daughter, Erika, may be somewhat coercive." Soon thereafter Ms. Cheney took the lethal dose and died.

My concerns about assisted death are shared widely throughout the disability community. In fact, every major disability rights organization that has taken a stance on assisted suicide opposes its legalization. Our concerns extend further than abuse.

As I mentioned, disabled people frequently encounter members of society who believe that they know what is best for us. The medical community is one of the biggest offenders. The medical community has historically encouraged parents not to have or raise their disabled children, has prevented disabled people from reproducing by forcibly sterilizing us without our consent, and has forced us into nursing facilities and other institutions simply because of our disabilities. To have this community in charge of deciding who can access assisted suicide is incredibly troubling.

In recent years, plenty of medical professionals have deemed that assisted suicide is appropriate solely if a person is disabled. For example, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, most of Dr. Jack Kevorkian's victims were not terminally ill, they simply had disabilities. Furthermore, the top reasons given for wanting assisted suicide are not pain or fear of future pain, but feeling like a "burden on others," experiencing a "loss of autonomy," or a "loss of dignity." These factors are all disability related, as disabled people are often made to feel like burdens because we need assistance, which also contributes to the perceived loss of autonomy and dignity.

I, along with my allies in the disability community, urge all New Yorkers to understand that assisted suicide is not a "right" to be glorified, but a double standard that is lethal to communities that are already marginalized, oppressed and abused. We deserve the same suicide prevention that nondisabled people enjoy, because despite the widespread belief otherwise, I assure you, our lives are worth living.

Stephanie Woodward is a graduate of Syracuse University College of Law and is the director of advocacy at the Center for Disability Rights in Rochester.

Assisted Suicide: Nurses in the Line of Fire

This article was published by Nancy Valko on her blog on November 5, 2015

Nancy Valko

By Nancy Valko

Years ago, the newly legalized Oregon physician-assisted suicide law caused much discussion at my St. Louis hospital. Some of my fellow nurses said that they supported such a law but when I asked them if they would participate, they were shocked. “No, of course, the doctor would have to do it!”, one exclaimed. Some nurses, like perhaps most people, thought assisted suicide would only occur at a patient’s home with his or her family sitting with the patient watching the drinking of the lethal overdose.

I explained that in hospitals or hospices, would we expect the assisting doctors to be present when the patient ingested the lethal overdose, not to mention staying with the patient and family during the time it could take for the patient to die? My colleague agreed that nurses, not doctors, would probably bear the brunt of the “dirty work” of assisted suicide.

Back in 2000 and three years after Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide, I saw an article from Nursing Spectrum magazine titled “Assisted Suicide: What Role for Nurses?” that stated:

Initially, when the law was designed, the assumption was that physicians would be the first ones to explore PAS with patients,” says Pam Matthews, RN, BSN, administrator for Evergreen Hospice, Albany, OR, “but in reality, nurses are usually the ones in the line of fire…. Much of nurses’ roles lies behind the scenes long before the drama of PAS unfolds. Home care and hospice nurses actively help patients understand their rights, acting as advocates for those who are considering PAS.”

How many nurses are really willing to “advocate” for physician-assisted suicide? The article states:

“Before PAS became law, it was publicly debated, and we performed surveys of our hospice teams’ feelings on the issue,” Matthews says. “We found that most nurses felt strongly that patients should have the choice of PAS, although most said they would not participate in the event.”

Recently, I spoke to a nurse in Washington State who is against physician-assisted suicide law about nurses’ experience with physician-assisted suicide in her state. She referred me to a 2014 study in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management titled “Dignity, Death, and Dilemmas: A Study of Washington Hospices and Physician-Assisted Death”. (click on link and click PDF to read the full text)

While 21% of the Washington hospices in this study, mostly religiously-affiliated, refused any involvement in assisted suicide, this study sadly confirms the how legalization has affected both hospices’ and nurses’ role in assisted suicide.

Here are some excerpts:

Germany prohibits the commercialization of assisted suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The German Bundestag has approved assisted suicide for altruistic reasons. The law is similar to the Swiss law except that it prohibits the commercialization of assisted suicide.

The fact is that the Swiss law permits assisted suicide for altruistic reasons, but the groups that facilitate assisted suicide actually developed over time, rather than the law simply permitting it. Now that Germany officially permits assisted suicide, the question is how will it develop over time. The German RT news reported:

MPs in Germany have rejected a bill that would have made commercial assisted suicides legal, instead passing a new law punishing such practices with up to three years imprisonment, even if doctors perform the procedure to relieve suffering. 

The bill, which was upheld with 360 out of 602 votes, criminalizes organizations that assist patients in terminating their own lives for profit. It is meant to prevent the commercialization of the procedure as a “suicide business.” 

However, single instances of suicide assistance – by a doctor or relative – do not contradict the new law.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is concerned that now that the door is officially opened to assisted suicide, how long will it take for the courts or future parliaments to expand the law?

Germany has not legalized euthanasia.
 

Doctors group to challenge Quebec euthanasia law in the courts.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Quebec group, Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice and Lisa D'Amico, a woman with a disability, have launched a legal challenge to the Quebec euthanasia law that is scheduled to begin on December 10.

The Canadian Press reported that Domique Talarico, the lawyer for the group stated that:

“The Supreme Court has not ruled on the Quebec law, has not addressed the Quebec law, because that law was not part of the questions to be decided,” 

Talarico said that a patient’s consent cannot be free and informed if they have not been offered all palliative care options, which is not always the case in the province due to a lack of accessibility to certain treatments, drugs and services. 

“The actual state of the health system, disease screening, the state of health care and palliative care in Quebec are possibly more deficient than anywhere else in Canada. The context of care is part of the totality of evidence to be presented to Superior Court,”

Dr Paul Saba

Dr Paul Saba, the leader of the group stated:

“As a doctor, I can’t accept something that is non-medical, non-scientific,”

“It even goes against my code of ethics in Quebec. Under the code of ethics, if we have treatments to offer or an operation, we must always use the least dangerous.”

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition hopes that the Quebec court will fast-track this case based on the fact that lethal injections will be able to begin occurring on December 10 this year.

Tom Mortier: Surely you’re joking, Mr Denton - Belgian euthanasia is a problem free zone?

This article was published by Mercatornet on their Careful blog on November 4, 2015

Tom Mortier in Australia

By Tom Mortier

In May 2015 Paul Russell, of Hope, an Australian coalition opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide, invited me to come to Adelaide to speak about my experiences with the Belgian euthanasia law. It is now well known that my physically healthy mother was killed by a lethal injection given by the Flemish euthanasia practitioner Dr Wim Distelmans.

At the conference, Paul told me that someone called Andrew Denton wanted to interview me. I had never heard of Mr Denton, but Paul told me that he was very famous and that it would be a good opportunity to talk with him. So I did. I don’t remember much from the interview, but he did ask searching questions.

I told him that a staff writer from The New Yorker was also working on a piece about the suicide of my mother. When it was eventually published, I forwarded it to him because it gave a good insight into the Flemish euthanasia lobby.

When I spoke with Mr Denton in Adelaide, I didn’t realise that he was so well-known in Australia. He had even been featured pulling faces on the cover of Rolling Stone. I learned that he was both a comedian and a real television celebrity.

Tom Mortier's mother

But I was very disappointed in his treatment of euthanasia and assisted suicide. He mentioned me during a radio interview but he said that the story of my late mother was sad, but did not prove that the Belgian euthanasia law wasn’t working. Australia needed an euthanasia law as soon as possible and Belgium (and the Netherlands) is the model, he declared.

Most citizens support the law and “only five percent” of all deaths there are due to lethal injections, he claims. For Denton, it is all about “free choice”. He told TV viewers that he had attended a big “anti-euthanasia” conference and that everything that the people had been telling him during that conference was a lie. Belgian euthanasia is a problem-free zone.

No problems, Mr Denton? Really? Are you speaking as a comedian or as a journalist? Perhaps you should watch a bit more Australian television.

An SBS television documentary recently demonstrated how well euthanasia works in my country. An 85-year-old woman committed suicide on camera with the assistance of Dr Marc Van Hoey, an euthanasia advocate and chairman of the right-to-die with dignity movement in Flanders. Although the Belgian euthanasia law states that a psychiatrist should give advice (not necessarily approval) in the case of a non-terminal illness and a third doctor should be involved in the euthanasia procedure, Van Hoey said that these other doctors were not needed. After giving scores of lethal injections, he had enough experience to decide whether the old woman could die on camera.

Why involve family members? It was the woman’s choice. Her estranged daughter now had a nice memento: her mother dying on YouTube.

The SBS journalist interviewed me but when he tried to interview the co-chairman of the euthanasia commission, Wim Distelmans, he was snubbed.

The event at which Distelmans brushed him off gives you an idea of his stature in Belgium. He was being honoured as the Flemish “Humanist of the Year” and in his thank-you speech he praised his friends in the Flemish media. Unlike the foreign media, they understand what euthanasia is really about.

Auschwitz

In fact, only the foreign media does what Belgian journalists are paid to do: ask hard questions. The German magazine Der Spiegel followed Distelmans to Auschwitz when he organized an instructional tour to show the differences between his euthanasia policy and the killings of the Nazis.

Der Spiegel pointed out that the good doctor had been responsible for the death of hundreds, if not thousands, of people. But he told the magazine that a lethal injection should be seen as an act of “unconditional love”.

Now, can you, Mr Denton, after your eight months of research, explain the following: I loved my mother for more than 30 years and I wanted her to live; Dr Distelmans loved her so much – “unconditionally” – that after a few brief consultations over six months he gave her a lethal injection. It’s a funny sort of love our doctors have in Belgium, Mr Denton.

Mr Denton’s eight months of research also failed to uncover the corrupt conflicts of interest in Belgium’s Federal Evaluation and Control Commission for Euthanasia. Dr Distelmans has been the chairman or co-chairman of the commission since 2002, when euthanasia became legal.

The commission is stacked with euthanasia advocates like Gilles Genicot and Jacqueline Herremans who adore him. Distelmans has sent hundreds, if not thousands of cases for review to a commission of which he is the chairman. How is that possible?

According to Herremans, Distelmans is in the room, but says nothing when his own cases are discussed. Genicot told the SBS reporter that the euthanasia law was all about trust between the doctor and the patient and that we couldn’t put doctors on trial.

So, Mr Denton, does Australia really need euthanasia doctors? I heard that Australia’s Dr Death, Philip Nitschke, is now doing comedy and now you, a comedian, have become an euthanasia advocate. What’s your next trick? Filming a man jumping off a bridge?

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

Germany's Jewish community opposes assisted suicide, while the nation debates the issue.

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The German Bundestag is scheduled to debate four assisted suicide proposals on Friday November 6. The Handelsblatt Global Edition reported, in a mostly pro-euthanasia article, that the four proposals range from complete liberalization to completely protecting people from euthanasia and assisted suicide. According to the article:

It’s encouraging how openly parliament is discussing the subject. Four motions will be on the agenda on November 6, when the Bundestag votes on how assisted suicide will be handled in the future. Proposals range from drastic penalties for anyone who assists in a suicide to complete liberalization of euthanasia, even for those who are not sick.

Germany's Health Minister, for instance, has stated that he supports a ban on the business of assisted suicide, such as occurs at the suicide clinics in Switzerland.

On Monday, Germany's Jewish community stated their opposition to the legalization of assisted suicide. According to the Jewish Times:

The Central Council of Jews in Germany said Monday that there must be no liberalization of assisted suicide in the country.

Josef Schuster

Central Council President Josef Schuster, a physician and member of the Central Ethics Committee of the German Medical Association, said:

“Seriously ill and elderly people should not be pushed to commit suicide,” 

“Assisted suicide must not become a regular service provided by doctors, an alternative to care for the dying,”

Schuster urged more support for hospice and palliative care.

In December 2014, the German Ethics Council rejected a change in the assisted suicide law. In September 2014, the memorial to the T-4 euthanasia program victims opened in Berlin.

The German Medical Association opposes euthanasia.

Further information:

• German ethics committee rejects the legalisation of assisted suicide.
• German Bundestag opposes assisted suicide groups.
• Memorial to the T-4 euthanasia program opens in Berlin.
• German Medical Association opposes euthanasia.
• The victims of Nazi euthanasia have been forgotten.

A disabled man's plea to Canada's new Prime Minister about Assisted Suicide.

This letter was written by Mark Pickup and published on his blog on October 31, 2015

The Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau
Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
OTTAWA, Ontario K1A 0A6

Dear Prime Minister:

Supreme Court ruling for assisted suicide

Mark Pickup

I am writing to plead with you to invoke the notwithstanding clause of  the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms and override the monstrous Supreme Court decision to strike down the nation’s law against assisted suicide. It will be consistent with your previous support for a National Suicide Prevention Strategy that received unanimous support of Parliament in October of 2012. The high court’s odious decision threatens to set back advances in disability inclusion forty years that I and others have fought hard to gain.

I have been incurably ill with aggressive multiple sclerosis (MS) for more than thirty years. Its degenerative nature gradually stripped me of physical function from being healthy and athletic to living in an electric wheelchair. If assisted suicide had been available during the mid-1980s I might have opted for it at a low point. I’m so glad I did not seek out a Jack Kevorkian. I never would have known my grandchildren. You see, Prime Minister, quality of life changes. What gave my life quality in 1984 is not what gives my life quality in 2015. Physical function is not so important to me anymore; it is love that brings quality to my life now: To love and be loved. 

You did the right thing in 2012 by supporting a national suicide prevention strategy. Do the right thing again and invoke the notwithstanding clause, even though it will be unpopular. A national suicide prevention strategy must be for all Canadians, not just the healthy. Support increased emphasis on palliative medicine in medical schools and nursing programs across the country.

Thank you for reading and considering my letter. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

I am, Sir,
Yours very truly,
Mark Davis Pickup

Stephen Drake: Don't buy into aid in dying.

This article was published by the Rochester NY Democrat and Chronicle on October 30, 2015 and republished on the Not Dead Yet website on October 31.

Stephen Drake

By Stephen Drake - Guest Essayist.

Stephen Drake is the research analyst for Not Dead Yet.

Recently, you’re hearing and reading a lot about “aid in dying” — a relatively new term that is increasingly used in place of “assisted suicide.” You’re also being told that the issues surrounding assisted suicide are simple, with the only objections coming from far-right Christian conservatives.

There are many nonreligious progressives who have actively opposed legalization of assisted suicide for many years. The organization I work for is a secular disability rights group formed 19 years ago to oppose legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Thirteen other national disability rights groups also oppose legalization – many of them for over a decade.

Legalized assisted suicide sets up a discriminatory policy toward suicide based on the health status of the person who wants to commit suicide. Young, healthy, nondisabled people’s suicides are treated as preventable tragedies, while old, ill and disabled people are seen as expressing autonomy and deserving assistance to make sure our suicides don’t fail.

Seen from our perspective, that doesn’t smack of compassion or respect. Is it a coincidence that assisted suicide is gaining ground just as more of us are aging while we face growing cuts in the health care and social safety nets on both state and federal levels? Derek Humphry — often called the father of the assisted suicide movement — wrote in a book he co-authored in 2000 about the Unspoken Argument that it would be economics more than anything else that would drive assisted suicide to the plateau of acceptance.

Advocates for assisted suicide also claim that legalization will bring an underground practice into the light. That’s bogus. First of all, the state reported “data” we get from Oregon comes from the doctors who prescribe lethal drugs and the pharmacies that dispense them, with no state verification or investigation, even when problem cases come to light in the mainstream press. While advocates for assisted suicide generally support statutes that have the appearance of accountability, it’s no accident that two of the five assisted suicide bills proposed in New York State have no reporting requirements at all.

As for the “aid in dying,” this term was the result of extensive testing with focus groups, according to assisted suicide advocates giving a presentation at a conference several years ago.

“Aid in dying” is a marketing term to draw more support than the term “assisted suicide.” But don’t buy it.

Stephen Drake is research analyst for the disability rights group, Not Dead Yet.

Horrible UK End-of-Life Care Pushes Assisted Suicide.

This article was published on Wesley Smith's blog on October 29, 2015.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

A Netherlander death doctor once notoriously said he had little need for palliative care because he had euthanasia.

Negligence and lousy medicine can also push desperate people into assisted suicide rather than face awful conditions. That is apparently what is happening in the UK, as horrible end-of-life care pushes people to accept assisted suicide over abandonment and being allowed to die in pain. From the Telegraph story:

“Shocking” standards of end-of-life care in the NHS are fueling support for the legalisation of assisted dying, the chairman of an inquiry by MPs into palliative care in the UK has warned. 

Bernard Jenkin chairman of the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee said a fear of “finishing up on some hospital trolley, dying in some forgotten corner” was helping drive support among the public for a change in the law. 

The committee is calling for an urgent overhaul of training and the working culture in hospitals to address “systemic” failings in caring for people in the final days and hours of their lives.

This is a lesson of the dangers of the growing “quality of life” ethic in medicine and centralized, bureaucratic control over the delivery of health care, coming our way with Obamacare.

But assisted suicide is not the solution. It is, instead, a surrender that will make such negligent and indifferent care more difficult to remedy.

But boy, what a vote of no confidence that many Brits suicide as preferable to receiving end-of-life care in the NHS.