Liberal Members of Parliament may be ordered to vote for euthanasia bill.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The Liberal Party has ordered Liberal Members of Parliament to support their upcoming euthanasia bill, even though many of them may object to the language of the bill.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC), which was not given the opportunity to present to the parliamentary committee, recognizes that the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the assisted suicide law, but the design and language of the future law will determine who qualifies for and how likely it is that the law will be misused.

In all jurisdictions where euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal, the system requires two doctors to  approve the death, and then the doctor who assists the death, must send in a report, after the person has died without before-the-death third-party oversight. An after-the-death reporting system allows doctors to self police and self report leading to misuse of the law, under-reporting, and falsified reports.

One of the issues that is being debated is whether euthanasia should be permitted for psychiatric reasons. Canada's euthanasia lobby is pushing for euthanasia for people who cannot consent. Ambiguous definitions could enable a person who requires treatment for depression to die an assisted death.

Last week the Globe and Mail reported that Liberal House Leader Dominic LeBlanc confirmed that the Liberal vote will be whipped to support the euthanasia bill. The Liberals have a majority government in the House of Commons. LeBlanc justified this decision by defining assisted dying as a "Charter of Rights" issue.

As much as LeBlanc, and the Liberal leadership have defined euthanasia as a Charter issue, it simply is not. The Supreme Court struck down Canada's assisted suicide act, but it did not declare that there is a "right to die."

Hon John McKay

Long term Liberal MP John McKay told the Globe and Mail:

“It’s not core to the government’s mandate; it’s a response to the Supreme Court,” he said. “I don’t see this as a Charter issue.”

Robyn Urback, from the National Post challenged the Liberals to be honest with why they are whipping the vote. Urback wrote:

"In claiming the issue is about the charter, rather than how the government meets the requirements of the court, LeBlanc is being both misleading and dishonest... In using the charter as a cape to deflect queries and justify dictating the vote to parliamentarians, no matter what their consciences may tell them, Trudeau is treating Parliament as a rubber stamp for the leadership."

After publishing this article, the Globe and Mail published a new article stating that the Liberals may not order Liberal MP's to support the euthanasia bill. The new article quoted Liberal House leader, Dominic LeBlanc, as stating:

“We decided to delay the decision about whether or not it’s a whipped vote. It’s premature to come to a final conclusion like that,” 

“We’re going to discuss the bill and the committee report in our caucus, and we will make the decision as to how the bill will be handled once the bill is introduced in the House.”

EPC recognizes that by whipping the vote, the Liberals will also control the consideration of amendments to the bill. The Liberal decision to snub democracy will likely impose on Canada an irresponsible and dangerous euthanasia law.

The Conservative and NDP Members of Parliament have been given a free-vote in parliament.

Senator Denise Batters opposes euthanasia for psychiatric reasons

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Senator Denise Batters

Canadian Senator Denise Batters, who became a widow after her husband David Batters, a former Member of Parliament, died by suicide. Batters, who is a mental health advocate, is speaking out about her opposition to euthanasia for psychological suffering.

Senator Batters, who was interviewed by Kristy Kirkup for the Canadian Press, opposes euthanasia for psychological suffering based on her personal experience with suicide and as a mental health advocate. The Canadian Press reported:

Batters said she unfortunately has insight into how a suicidal mind works because her husband took his own life in 2009 after a battle with severe anxiety and depression. 

"I have seen ... the devastating impact, not only for the individual that goes through that pain themselves ... but at the same time ... I've seen the devastating consequences that it can have on the immediate family members,"

Batters recognizes the reality that assisted death has been imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada, but she also recognizes that Canadians want a tightly worded law.

"Canadians may support assisted suicide, but they want extremely strong safeguards and I think that when I talk to people about the possibility of psychological suffering being included as ... sole grounds for having access to physician-assisted suicide, they are horrified and stunned that could be a possibility," 

"Unfortunately, my situation with my husband, did not have a good ending ... however, that doesn't mean there aren't many, many thousands of people in this country who have lived through a period of severe anxiety and depression and come out the other side."

Senator Batters also opposes the Liberal governments imposing a party line vote on Liberal MP's on this issue.

"I urge the Liberal caucus to think twice about that and give their members of Parliament the opportunity to vote with their conscience,"

Senator Batter is a lawyer who worked as the chief of staff for Saskatchwan's Minister of Justice (2007 - 2012) became a mental health advocate to help others.

"It really helps me to know that I might be helping somebody by something I'm saying and if I can prevent somebody else from being in the situation I'm in, basically an unwilling family survivor of suicide,"

Euthanasia for psychiatric reasons, including depression, is being debated in Canada. A recent study determined that euthanasia for psychiatric reasons, in the Netherlands, is not being tightly controlled.

Study uncovers problems with euthanasia for psychiatric reasons in the Netherlands.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The journal JAMA Psychiatry recently published a study on February 10, 2016 examining euthanasia for psychiatric reasons in the Netherlands by researchers Scott Y. H. Kim, MD, PhD; Raymond G. De Vries, PhD; John R. Peteet, MD.

The study examined 66 cases of euthanasia for psychiatric reasons between 2011 and 2014. The data for this study was provided by the Netherlands Regional Review Committee.

It should be noted that the euthanasia reports are submitted by the doctor who causes the death, after the person dies by lethal injection. Therefore the data, as bad as it may appear, may not uncover all of the problems since doctors are self-reporting the euthanasia deaths, a system that enables physicians to hide information that may be controversial.

The Netherlands 2014 euthanasia report stated that there were 41 euthanasia deaths for psychiatric reasons and 81 people with dementia died by euthanasia.

The CTV news report by Marlene Leung and Michael Shulman, indicated that the study uncovered some controversial data. According to the report, of the 66 people who died by euthanasia:

70 per cent were women;
52 per cent had attempted suicide;
80 per cent had been hospitalized for psychiatric reasons;

Further to that, CTV news indicated that there were several controversial cases:

However, in one EAS case, a woman in her 70s without health problems had decided, with her husband, that they would not live without each other. After her husband died, she lived a life described as a "living hell" that was "meaningless." 

A consultant reported that this woman "did not feel depressed at all. She ate, drank and slept well. She followed the news and undertook activities." 

The review found that 21 patients had been refused EAS at some point, but in three cases the physicians later changed their mind and performed EAS. The remaining 18 patients had physicians who were new to them perform EAS. 

In 41 per cent of the cases the physician performing EAS was a psychiatrist, but in the rest of the cases it was usually a general practitioner, the review found. 

Consultation with other doctors were "extensive, but in 11 per cent of the cases, there was no independent psychiatric input. In 24 per cent of the cases, there were disagreements among the physicians.

Dr. Scott Kim

Dr Kim expressed several concerns. According to CTV news Kim stated:

while the assessment of most terminal illnesses does not involve a lot of "physician discretion," and doctors can be "fairly sure" what the eventual outcome for the patient will be, psychiatric conditions are less clear. 

"Physicians must make tricky clinical determinations … without the help of a robust evidence base," 

"There is no evidence base to operationalize 'unbearable suffering,' there are no prospective studies of decision-making capacity in persons seeking EAS for psychiatric reasons, and the prognosis of patients labeled as 'treatment-resistant depression' varies considerably, depending on the population and the kind of treatments they receive."

Tara Brousseau-Snider

Canada is currently debating euthanasia for psychiatric reasons. Tara Brousseau-Snider, executive direct of the Mood Disorders Association of Manitoba, said she is concerned about the potential of Canada offering doctor-assisted suicide to those with mental illness.

According to CTV news, she said a woman with severe depression came into the Winnipeg centre just months ago and told a counsellor that she wanted to end her life.

"I find this is very alarming, very worrisome because people, through different avenues, find a different way of life and nobody needs to sit with depression and be miserable all through their lives. There are options; there are supports available," said Brousseau-Snider.

The Canadian government should heed the results of this study and ensure that if euthanasia becomes legal, that it is not permitted for psychiatric reasons.

New York Post: Don't pretend its not assisted suicide - at least.

This editorial was published by the New York Post on February 15, 2016.

Deceptive names for legislation are nothing new, but this takes the cake.

Introduced by Democrat Amy Paulin in the Assembly and Republican John Bonacic in the state Senate, the bill would make it easier for terminal New York patients to get doctors to give them fatal doses of drugs.

They call it an “aid in dying” bill, but “Assisted Suicide Enhancement Act” is more to the point.

Or “The Streamlining Euthanasia Act.”

Yes, it has some safeguards: To get the deadly dose, the patient must meet with a counselor to show he or she is mentally and emotionally competent to make the fatal decision — which must be witnessed by two others, one of whom vouches to not benefit materially from the death.

New York law has long granted patients the right to refuse extraordinary measures to prolong life. But this is a huge jump — asking health professionals to provide the means to end life, and setting up a system whose abuse could literally mean murder.

It’s well worth debate — we don’t question Paulin or Bonacic’s good motives here. But the bill’s name shouldn’t hide what it’s really about.

Comment: Sadly the bill is worse than the New York Post has stated. The bill does not require a meeting with a counselor.

Hollywood Promotes The Idea It Is Better To Be Dead Than Disabled

This article was written by Dominic Evans and published on his blog on Feb 11, 2016.

Few films make me as upset as The Sea Inside. It has been years since the first time I saw the 2004 Alejandro Amenábar vehicle, which stars Javier Bardem, as a real-life disabled man named Ramón Sampedro, a Spanish man who believed it was better to be dead than disabled. Rather than portraying disability in a way that would open up dialogue about why disabled people feel that way, and addressing the greater issue of how society views disability, the film is a testament as to why non-disabled people should pity the disabled community, especially those who are as disabled as Ramón Sampedro, and support his decision to end his life, even if his disability was not fatal, which it was not.

We look to film and television for how to treat others, how to understand others, and to learn about stories about people we don’t actually know. The majority of non-disabled people do not know someone with a disability. This is in spite of disability be the world’s largest minority community with numbers between 1 billion worldwide. A lot of this is because disabled people have been kept away, out of public essentially sequestered to the back bedroom, until the early to mid-20th century, when disabled activists started fighting for their rights to go to school, find employment, and anything else non-disabled counterparts were doing. If not stuck in the back bedroom, others were performing in freak shows, the objects of pity and awe…never of understanding or relatability.

Around a century has passed, and society still doesn’t know how to deal with disabled people. Hollywood doesn’t know how to tell disabled stories, so it falls back upon tired tropes that often involve pity or awe. This trope is so common, many activists look out for it in any new forms of media that includes disability. Even as the world becomes more tolerant of other differences, the pity narrative for disabled characters continues. The Sea Inside came out over a decade ago, and yet we still have not evolved enough beyond the harmful message embedded in this film.

Even as disabled activists fight to prove that our lives are worth living, assisted suicide has been discussed, and even approved, in states like California. Such legislation puts disabled lives at risk, under the guise of letting terminally ill people die with dignity. Such films continue to uphold the narrative that disabled people deserve to be able to kill themselves, because being disabled is so awful. It doesn’t matter if the disabled person is dying. Suicide is still seen as a viable option, because people believe being disabled is a fate worse than death.

The latest film to take on the narrative that it is be better to be dead rather than disabled is a very disappointing film called Me Before You. It stars British television stars, Emilia Clarke and Jenna Coleman. Even more disappointing is the casting of The Hunger Games actor Sam Clafin, as a physically disabled man. The trailer is filled with ableism, and many harmful disability stereotypes. Additionally, not only is the non-disabled actor cast as a cripple, he’s the worst kind of crip. He is pathetic, pity-inducing, and absolutely inaccurate to most disabled people’s reality. He makes you want to pity him and support him dying, “because it’s the right thing to do.”

The film is based on a romance novel by British romance writer, Jojo Moyes. If it is anything like her novel, then *******SPOILERS AHEAD******* we are looking at a film that sees a man with a disability who in spite of finding love, still kills himself, because life is not worth living if you have to live it in a wheelchair. Of course, his disability is also a plot device for the true lead character, who actually benefits from the death. His disability and subsequent death because of it, allow her to go on living. She is able-bodied compared to him, so she is able to benefit because he leaves her the money she needs to have a successful life. His death benefits her, and solves all her problems, so even if she loved him, it is better for her that he died. You can see the trailer below:

The disability community is sick of seeing films where disabled people are misrepresented. Part of this is because we are not included, anywhere. We were not consulted for the script. A wheelchair user did not write the script. Even the main actor is an able-bodied actor, which prevents him from knowing how accurate his acting, how harmful his portrayal, and how inauthentic the script really are. Without including the disabled voice, non-disabled Hollywood continues to make life harder for us, because this is all people see, and they assume it’s true.

I believe that if Hollywood showed more disabled actors, particularly wheelchair users, who we never see, and the stories were more reflective of the disabled experience, then people would believe disabled lives were worth living. There is a huge difference between a debilitating illness, such as brain cancer, in the end stages, and a person with a disability who is not dying. You can find success, love, fulfillment even if you happen to use a wheelchair. It is not the end of the world, and these films need to stop scaring people into thinking it is. We cannot change the narrative about disability when these kinds of films continued to be made.

We cannot make better, accurate, disabled-inclusive films, so long as Hollywood is able to continue shutting us out. Often, performances in these kinds of movies are awarded by the institution, and disabled actors continue to struggle to find any type of meaningful work. If we are not even allowed to play disabled roles, who are we allowed to play? I only wish disabled perspectives were even considered, because until they are we will keep seeing films that continue to harm one of the most oppressed groups in the world. The disability community deserves better.

Dominick is a director/filmmaker, activist, writer, advocate, FTM transman from the Midwest who lives in New York. Follow his film career and join his weekly Twitter chat on film and disability by following #FilmDis. He received his BFA in Film Production in 2014.

Colorado assisted suicide bill should be defeated.

This article was written by Jennifer Ballentine and published in the Denver Post on Feb 13, 2016.

Jennifer Ballentine is vice president of Hospice Analytics in Colorado Springs.

Jennifer Ballentine

Colorado's legislators should be commended for hearing many hours of open testimony on the controversial End-of-Life Options Act (House Bill 1054), which would legalize physician-assisted death. At the end of the second hearing earlier this month, amendments were adopted to address concerns.

After all the wordsmithing and window-dressing, however, the amended bill still does not address the biggest problem of all, one that should worry both supporters and opponents of physician-assisted death.

In a nutshell: Although the bill lays out specific eligibility requirements and a detailed process by which people may request and receive life-ending drugs, the bill completely lacks any requirement for documentation, oversight, or enforcement.

Quite simply, all the so-called "safeguards" in the bill are a fairy tale.

Without documentation, processes can be sidestepped or skipped altogether. Without enforcement, protection is meaningless. Without reporting, no one can know whether the law has been used appropriately, misused, or even abused.

This is a significant change from last year's bill and a complete break with other enacted laws governing physician-assisted death.

In other legislation and laws, the doctor must document the process in the patient's medical record.

Not in this year's bill.

In other legislation and laws, the doctor is required to submit two brief checklists to the state health department, affirming that the process was followed.

Not in this year's bill.

In other legislation and laws, the state health department is charged with developing regulations for clear compliance with the law, reviewing a "sample" of the doctors' checklists, and publishing a public report on use of the law.

Not in this year's bill.

In other legislation and laws, a dispensing record for the lethal prescription must be filed with the state, creating an opportunity for retrieving unused deadly drugs from the community.

Not in this year's bill.

Last year's bill required that a death from prescribed lethal drugs under this law — likely taking place at the patient's home with no doctor in attendance — be reported to the coroner. (In most Colorado jurisdictions, all deaths at home without doctor attendance are already reportable.)

The coroner would then confirm with the person's doctor that the process under the law was followed. If so, no further investigation or autopsy would be required. While this coroner confirmation was absurdly light, it at least provided a chance for some third-party scrutiny and a potential deterrent to anyone inclined to abuse the law.

Not in this year's bill.

This year's bill allows the attending doctor — who has presided over the entire process and "ensured" all safeguards have been observed — to "certify" in some undefined way that the death occurred in accordance with the law.

Think about this: It's like asking a security guard — who could be very conscientious and alert but also could be sound asleep, hanging with friends, or handing the burglars the keys — to "certify" that the building and all its occupants and valuables are safe, so who needs those pesky cameras or logs of door checks or any supervision by the office manager?

In many meetings over the past two years in Colorado, advocates for physician-assisted death have cited the "evidence" from the public reports in Oregon as "proof" that the law is working, there is no misuse or abuse, all is well. But this bill, should it pass in Colorado, will rob everyone of any way to know for sure what is happening.

The only possible explanation for this frightening negligence is that the sponsors, in a tight budget year, wish to avoid any financial cost to the state. It is disappointing to see the safety of patients, doctors, healthcare providers, and communities put at risk by political expedience.

Whether you think physician-assisted death is good or bad, this bill is bad, and should be defeated.

Oregon 2015 assisted suicide report - another 26% increase in assisted suicide deaths.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The 2015 Oregon assisted suicide report indicates that there was another 26% in assisted suicide deaths and a 40% increase in lethal prescriptions. The 2014 Oregon assisted suicide report indicated a 44% increase in assisted suicide deaths and a 48% increase in lethal prescriptions representing an 81% increase in assisted suicide deaths in two years.

The 2015 annual report is similar to prior years. The report implies that the deaths were voluntary (self-administered), but the information in the report does not address that subject.

Oregon's assisted suicide law allows the lethal dose to be administered without effective oversight. The Oregon law enables two doctors to approve death by assisted suicide and once the lethal prescription is written there is no further oversight. The prescribing physician was present at the assisted suicide death in only 14 of 132 deaths in 2015 creating the opportunity for an heir, or someone else who will benefit from the patient's death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without the patient's consent. "Even if he struggled, who would know?"

After the person dies by assisted suicide, in Oregon, the doctor who prescribed the lethal dose is required to submit a report. The information in the annual reports are solely based on the data provided by the doctors who prescribe the lethal dose and then self-report after the death of the person. This system enables abuses of the law to be covered-up. Doctors do not self-report abuse of the law. 

For instance, in 2015, the ingestion status of 43 people who received a lethal dose was unknown with no report being submitted in 5 of the 43 died (It is possible that these deaths represented unreported assisted suicide deaths. It is unknown whether these people died by assisted suicide. 

In 2015, Oregon assisted suicide deaths increased in numbers and conditions.

• 132 people died by assisted suicide in 2015, which was up from 105 assisted suicide deaths in 2014 and 73 assisted suicide deaths in 2013.
• 218 lethal prescriptions were obtained in 2015, which was up from 155 lethal prescriptions in 2014 and 121 lethal prescriptions in 2013.

Deaths from "other illnesses" continue to increase as the reasons for assisted suicide expand. In 2015, 14 people (more than 10%) died from other illnesses which included diabetes.

Similar to previous years, only 5 people received a psychiatric evaluation even though a few years ago an Oregon study found that 26% of the people who requested assisted suicide were depressed. Psychiatrist, Dr Steven King recently stated in the Psychiatric Times that the Oregon law is not protecting depressed patients.

The number of people who had private health insurance and died by assisted suicide dropped from 60.2% in previous years to 36.7% in 2015. An increasing number of people who request assisted suicide are dependent on Medicaid or Medicare (62.5% in 2015 up from an average of 38.3% in the past). This is concerning since the Oregon Health Authority pays for assisted suicide but not suicide prevention for adults.

Even though the number of assisted suicides continue to increase, in 2015 Oregon debated a bill to expand the definition of terminal, from 6 months to 12 months to death. One reason for the proposed expansion was that doctors already ignore the 6 month terminal definition. In 2015, one person died 517 days (more than 1.5 years) after being prescribed the lethal dose.

The assisted suicide lobby is also trying to expand the assisted suicide law by forcing doctors who oppose assisted suicide to refer their patients to doctors who will assist suicides.

The disability rights group, Not Dead Yet, argues that assisted suicide is discriminatory and a violation of the Americans with disabilities act. I agree.

Canada's euthanasia lobby pushes euthanasia for people who cannot consent.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A recent poll commissioned by the euthanasia lobby was designed to pressure Canada's parliament to approve euthanasia for incompetent people with advanced dementia.

The Supreme Court February 2015 Carter decision permitted euthanasia for:

“a competent adult person who
(1) clearly consents to the termination of life and
(2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.”

The Supreme Court decision stated that the person must clearly consent, but the euthanasia lobby is not satisfied with limiting euthanasia to consenting adults so they designed a poll to suggest that 80 per cent of Canadians agree that individuals with a terminal medical condition like dementia should be permitted to consent to assisted death in advance. 

According to a recent study from Belgium, where assisted death was legalized for competent adults in 2002, there were more than 1000 assisted deaths without explicit request in 2013.

The euthanasia lobby wants you to believe that they only support euthanasia for people who are competent, terminally ill and suffering, but in reality they also want euthanasia without an explicit consent for incompetent people. 

If this is about "freedom of choice," as the euthanasia lobby claims, how can it be assured that the person with dementia is freely choosing to be killed? 

The euthanasia lobby is not satisfied with the Supreme Court decision to limit killing to people who clearly consent, they also want death for people who they define as better off dead and who cannot consent.

Transparency essential in assisted dying applications.

This article was published by Advocate Daily on February 10, 2016.

Hugh Scher

While some anticipate that those seeking personal constitutional exemptions for physician-assisted suicide will want anonymity, Toronto human rights and constitutional lawyer Hugh Scher tells Lawyers Weekly that scrutiny and transparency in end-of-life practices are key to detecting and deterring abuse.

Although the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the ban on physician-assisted suicide unconstitutional in its landmark decision last year in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), the ban has been left in force until June to allow Parliament time to draft a new law. In mid-January, the Supreme Court ruled that those who meet the criteria the court set out last year may apply to a superior court to be exempted from the Criminal Code’s blanket prohibition of assisted suicide.

In the meantime, Lawyers Weekly says some lawyers and judges could be faced with questions such as when should a lawyer take on this type of case, and should counsel seek anonymity for clients.

However, Scher, of Scher Law, counsel for intervener Euthanasia Prevention Coalition before the Supreme Court in the Carter case and in the case of Cuthbertson v. Rasouli, 2013 SCC 53, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 341, tells Lawyers Weekly:

“The court has not provided an open-ended right to kill people…I think it’s absolutely essential that there is the ability to have clear transparency, that these proceedings be public, that they be accountable, and they are subject to appeal where appropriate.”

In some circumstances, says Scher, court interventions will also be in order, as they have been in cases involving patients’ objections to withdrawal of medical treatment, such as in the Rasouli case.

“I think it is important, in appropriate cases, that there be the means for interventions from publicly interested organizations who can help to define and explain the law to the courts, and serve a useful role as friends of the court to attempt to flesh out some of these concepts, and what the limits and parameters are," or should be, Scher says.

Ultimately, Scher says he doesn’t expect Carter applications to turn into legal battlegrounds, but that identifying vulnerability through before the fact judicial oversight should be a permanent requirement in any case of assisted suicide to ensure compliance with legislative or court-imposed safeguards.

For lawyers who do take on such cases, Scher says it is essential to “document, document, document. Be aware of the requirements," he says, both in terms of obtaining proper medical information and evidence and making sure that all second opinions relative to palliative care, capacity assessment, voluntariness and to psychiatric concerns have been accessed and met.

“Take all steps to identify vulnerability…because if you’re going ahead with somebody who is truly vulnerable in nature, that can potentially expose lawyers to other risks. You don’t want to be perpetrating a fraud on the court by effectively going through with somebody that is trying to unduly influence, or effect coercion, on somebody.”

It would also be prudent to videotape meetings and instructions, he says.

“You want to be able to truly assess the independence, the judgment of the person, [to] make sure the person you are taking instructions from has the capacity to give those instructions,” and isn’t being unduly influenced by outside sources, including family members.

Wesley Smith: Canada's Death Courts

This article was published by Wesley Smith on his blog on February 10, 2016.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

Until Canada’s radical Supreme Court ruling imposing a positive right to euthanasia on the entire country goes into effect, suicidal ill and disabled people can apply to a court for a license to be killed. 

Death courts. 

From the “Practice Advisory” published by the Ontario court: 

Commencement of Application  

An application to the Superior Court of Justice for authorization for a physician assisted death shall be commenced by notice of application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and be in accordance with this Practice Advisory.  

Content of Notice of Application  

The notice of application shall state that the application shall be heard by a judge on a date to be fixed by the registrar at the place of hearing, such date not being earlier than fifteen days after the application is commenced and not being later than thirty days after the application is commenced. Depending upon the circumstances, certain applications may be heard sooner on an emergency basis. The nature of the relief sought on the application must be brought to the attention of the registrar by the applicant at the time of filing so that a hearing date within these time periods, or sooner, can be fixed. 

This is just stunning. A judge is going to dispassionately review an application to be killed, and then, rule thumbs up or down. 

I doubt there will be many refusals. The Supreme Court’s ruling is so broad and radical that virtually any medical condition beyond a tooth ache can qualify for euthanasia. 

And once the ruling goes into effect, even this minor impediment to death will be erased. 

This from a country that considers itself too enlightened to countenance a death penalty.

Poor Canada. We hardly knew ye.

Native leader: Assisted suicide is not part of our system of life.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Francois Paulette

Francois Paulette, the Dene Nation Elders Council Chair told Rachel Zeiniker from CBC news that:

"Traditionally, that (assusted death) is not part of our system of life," 

"We have a very high standard of looking after our people that are sick."

Paulette said that the indigenous perspective has been left out of the assisted death debate. He told CBC:

I think the leadership really needs to get on top of this and find a way for indigenous people to have a seat at the table so legislation respects and honours the UN Declaration of Indigenous People's Rights and treaty rights. 

I hope either the federal or territorial government provides assistance and money to bring leaders together.

Paulette hopes that the guidelines will be "respectful of traditional values and principles." 

The concerns of the native community, the disability community and minority communities have so far been ignored in the quest to impose euthanasia and assisted suicide upon Canadia.

The N.W.T. government has begun to solicit opinions from people in the territory. It has sent letters to stakeholders, and is accepting public feedback on its website until Monday, Feb. 15.

Another euthanasia scandal behind the euthanasia curtain.

This article was written by Michael Cook and published today by Careful.

Tine Nys (in the centre) with her sisters.

By Michael Cook.

Another euthanasia scandal in Belgium. Two sisters have complained on a television program, Terzake, about the euthanasia of their sister. Tine Nys was 38 at the time and had broken up with her live-in boyfriend. On Christmas Eve 2009 she announced that she was going to be euthanased.

After interviews with doctors, she was given a lethal injection on April 24, 2010, with her mother and father and her two sisters, Lotte and Sophie, at her bedside.

Belgium allows people to request euthanasia if they have unbearable psychological suffering, not just a terminal illness. Tine was obviously a troubled woman and 15 years before she had been seeing a psychiatrist regularly. But she was recovering from a love affair, not suffering unbearable mental anguish.

Three doctors were supposed to concur that she met all requirements: a psychiatrist and two other doctors. This time a psychiatrist casually made a diagnosis of “autism”. The sickness from which euthanasia candidates are suffering is supposed to be incurable. Autism may not be curable, but Tine was functioning adequately. None of the doctors made an effort to treat her – but they were willing to kill her.

What horrified her sisters was their callousness and how little interest they took in persuading her to live.

The day of her death was immensely distressing for the family. The doctor was so incompetent that he failed to bring bandages to hold fast the needle for the lethal injection. Instead, he asked Tine’s father to hold it on her arm. There was no place to hang the infusion bag with the toxic drug so the doctor placed it on the arm of Tine’ armchair. To the dismay of her grieving family, it plopped onto her face as she died. Then the doctor asked her parents to use his stethoscope to see that she was well and truly dead.

The doctor even described Tine’s death as “a lethal injection administered to a favourite pet to end its suffering”.

Even though defenders of Belgian euthanasia claim that safeguards are an integral part of the system, none of them seem to have worked. Tine had shopped around for compliant doctors and the three who ticked the boxes had not communicated with each other. The paperwork was not done within the legally required time. However, the government’s euthanasia commission still approved the doctor’s handiwork.

Lotte and Sophie described the death to the Terzake journalist as an act of “perverse” cruelty.

"I hope this was bad luck, but I fear that this is not an isolated case," said Joris Vandenberghe, a Flemish psychiatrist, told Terzake. "This is really very worrying. "The bar for euthanasia should be higher.”

The teary television interview has succeeded in getting some politicians to express misgivings about euthanasia. A former finance minister and he head of the Flemish Christian Democrats in the Belgian Senate, Steven Vanackere, now says that there are many shortcomings in the law, that the definition of mental suffering is too loose and that in 13 years only one case had been forwarded to the police.

On the other hand, it seems clear that most Belgian politicians and voters support the law. Tine Nys’s sisters have said that they don’t oppose the principle of euthanasia. So even if they investigate the appalling treatment she received, the euthanasia juggernaut will roll on.

But what if the complaint of these women is the tip of an iceberg of unresolved grief over euthanasia? It took them more than five years to bring their story before the public. What if euthanasia is so painful a topic for families that they cannot bring themselves to complain until many years afterwards, as happens with cases of childhood sexual abuse?

Euthanasia was only legalised in Belgium in 2002. Eventually Belgium could be buried under an avalanche of pent-up sorrow. A single death touches an entire family – and the doctor as well. If only a small proportion of cases have as incompetent and callous as Tine’s, there could be scores, if not hundreds of patients whose loved ones are suffering from repressed grief and anger. Who knows? But sooner or later the Belgians will find out.

Euthanasia movement destroys its archives.

This article was published by Wesley Smith on his blog on February 6, 2016.
Dowbiggin's historical book - A Merciful End - is available on Amazon.

Wesley Smith

B y Wesley Smith 

Historian Ian Dowbiggin wrote a splendid history of the euthanasia movement back in 2003. 

It was thorough, detailed, and objective. The movement cooperated with Dowbiggin by making its archives available for his use. But now, they may have been destroyed. From, “A Scandal in the Euthanasia Archives:” 

Imagine for a moment that reporters broke the news that the Vatican had destroyed the bulk of its archival records. 

Researchers around the world justifiably might accuse the Roman Catholic Church of a deliberate cover-up.  

Well, the Vatican has done no such thing. But it appears as if the right-to-die movement has. If so, one might well ask; why did people in the movement do it? Are they trying to hide something about their past?  

One thing is clear: if the euthanasia movement’s records have indeed been destroyed, a lot of history has vanished, Orwell-like, down a cavernous memory hole. And with it, information the right-to-die movement doesn’t want you to know. 

A Merciful End.

What is the evidence? 

About five years after the book’s publication, I was contacted by a US graduate student researching the history of euthanasia. She told me that in trying to track down the ESA records she had been informed that the collection had been intentionally destroyed. Just this year another US graduate student got in touch with me, also trying to locate the ESA archives.  

She too has been told the records no longer exist, although she is still investigating. Of course, it might be that the ESA records are sitting somewhere safe and sound. Yet why do groups like Compassion and Choices ignore my own requests for information? Why, when a published scholar in the history of medicine enquires about the whereabouts of this important archive, is there a resounding silence? 

Ian Dowbiggin

What might they want to erase: 

Not only did these activists urge governments to permit voluntary mercy-killing and physician-assisted suicide, many also supported the involuntary mercy-killing of handicapped people. For example, despite his knowledge of widespread Nazi murder of people with disabilities, in 1943 the ESA’s president thought it was a good idea to legalize euthanasia in time for returning veterans who suffered from mental and physical wounds. 

The euthanasia movement spent more than one hundred years looking for the right words and impetus to convince people to follow their dark calling. They think they have found it in “compassssssionnnn.” 

That is part of it, in a twisted way. But there is so much more to it than that–a malign side–and that is what the modern euthanasiaists may not want people see.

Dana Palmer: Against Colorado's assisted suicide bill.

This article was published in the Colorado Springs Gazette on February 3, 2016.

Dana Palmer

My name is Dana Palmer. In 2005, I was diagnosed with Glioblastoma-terminal brain cancer. My prognosis was only 3-12 months. Shortly after my diagnosis, my doctor received a form asking, "When will the patient recover sufficiently?" He drew a horizontal line through it, and wrote never!

My experience is similar to that of thousands of Coloradans who every year face terminal diagnoses and the stigma that they don't have a chance to live, and may be better off dead!

Assisted suicide only worsens this stigma.

After surviving my terminal prognosis for 10 years, I heard the story of the young California woman named Brittany Maynard who faced the same disease I did, and at the exact same age. She took her cancer story public, and it was used to headline a national effort to "normalize" assisted suicide. Immediately, she and other assisted suicide supporters sent a message to patients across the country: Assisted suicide is for you" and "There is no reason for hope." This is a very dangerous message for current and future patients!

Assisted suicide supporters call it a "choice," but to people facing a diagnosis like mine it can be interpreted as an obligation since many patients already feel like a burden. At any time after a terminal diagnosis emotions can run wild, and minds often change daily regarding treatment and care. But assisted suicide is final, it's an action that can't be undone. It can leave doctors and loved ones with regrets.

Under a bill currently proposed in Colorado, I would be eligible for assisted suicide based on my diagnosis. I would be permitted to see any doctor regardless of whether I had a previous relationship with them, and receive a lethal prescription in just a matter of days. Recently, I had a recurrence and battled my insurance company for a month to try to get approval for an out of network consultation at a major cancer facility that specializes in brain cancer. While I was appealing their decision, the cancer became more aggressive!

Sadly, had I asked for a lethal prescription - saving them hundreds of thousands of dollars - it would have likely been approved the same day and I would be dead right now! My family would not be required to know, and I would not be required to be evaluated by a psychologist or psychiatrist.

My journey hasn't been easy; however, people facing serious or terminal diseases have much better options than assisted suicide. And while no option is perfect, assisted suicide legalization sends a dangerous message to people like me about what the government thinks is my best option. I urge the Colorado Legislature to reject the idea that lethal drugs are an answer to serious illness or terminal diagnoses.

Ultimately, physician assisted suicide takes away the patient's choice to fight and live, and puts the power in the hands of doctors (that may have limited experience with the diagnosis and long term survivors) in a profit-driven health care system or to over-burdened caregivers.

Why should anyone die before their time, if in fact there may be a reason for hope?

Assisted Death: I never thought this day would come.

This article was published as a CMAJ blog on Feb 3, 2016 and republished with permission.

Diane Kelsall

By Diane Kelsall, 

Deputy Editor at CMAJ, and editor of CMAJ Open.

In June 1993 I attended my first international research meeting. WONCA (World Organization of National Colleges, Academies and Academic Associations of General Practitioners/Family Physicians) was having its annual meeting in The Hague and I had gotten funding from my fellowship program to attend.

It was all very exciting for someone new to the research world to see the hustle and bustle, and feel the energy, that accompanies such a large meeting. Even Queen Beatrix attended.

But that’s not what I remember most about the meeting.

One of the sessions put on by the local organizers focused on euthanasia (that was the term used at the conference). At the time, the Netherlands was the only jurisdiction in the world where this practice was legalized. Many attended out of curiosity—and the collective response was interesting. Numerous attendees filed out of the session in silence, clutching handouts that described euthanasia protocols:

Administer this. If the patient is still breathing, administer that. If the patient’s heart is still beating, do this.

We stood in small groups, hardly able to grasp what we were reading. This was so contrary to everything we had been taught and everything we believed. How could physicians have crossed this line? When did “above all do no harm” turn into an algorithm for death?

When I returned home, I put the protocols away in my desk. Every few years, I would stumble across them—and each time, I felt chilled as I read them.

Fast forward to February 2, 2016,,,
I received an email outlining interim guidance from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario on physician-assisted death. As I read through the guidance, I came across this statement: “College members may wish to consult resources on drug protocols used in other jurisdictions. Examples of such protocols are available in the Members’ section of the College’s website.”

More than twenty years after my trip to The Hague, I was again being given access to protocols to end patients’ lives.

Only, this time, it was in my own country. In my province. From my College.
I never thought this day would come. And I am still chilled.

Assisted suicide lobby: force doctors to kill.

Wesley Smith

This article was written by Wesley Smith and published by the National Review on February 4, 2016.

By Wesley Smith

When seeking to convince a wary public to legalize assisted suicide, euthanasia pushers ooze with promises and assurances that it will only be a last resort–never actually a legal requirement–and that doctors and religious facilities can always opt out.

But once euthanasia consciousness is widely accepted by a population, we find that these promises were made to be broken.

In Oregon, doctors are protected in law if they don’t wish to assist suicides, and religious medical institutions can legally opt out–which many do.

That doesn’t sit well with David Grube, a national medical director for Compassion and Choices–the George Soros-funded assisted suicide promoting and facilitating death organization. Based on a column published in the Register Guard, he wants religious medical facilities forced into cooperation.

From the column:

However, some dying and suffering Oregonians are still not allowed the choice of a death with dignity as they would define it. Some private institutions, particularly those owned and operated by religious institutions, do not allow their employed staff (physicians, hospice workers, etc.) to participate in the process.

Because there can never be enough assisted suicides. 

Besides, C & C has a list of death doctors ideologically predisposed to lethally prescribe. Indeed, the majority of Oregon’s assisted suicides have the hemlockers’ finger prints on them.

What to do? Coerce!

No physician who is personally opposed to helping her or his competent and dying patients end their suffering is obliged to participate. But all physicians should consider referring their patients when the occasion arises — and, in my opinion, no institution should prevent their medical providers from considering legal medical decisions. The state of Oregon, not the church, licenses physicians and determines their competencies and privileges. 

Institutions have the right to choose who can be on their medical staffs. Forcing a Catholic hospital (say) to employ or give staffing privileges to death doctors would violate the free exercise of religion, the right to free association, and all the (false) assurances made by the right to die crowd when they cajole people into legalizing prescribed death.

Lest you think religious institutions will never be forced to act lethally, they already are in Quebec, where euthanasia is euphemistically called “aid in dying,” and from all appearances, an approach that will be taken throughout all of Canada when the euthanasia-is-a-right Supreme Court decision goes into effect nationally.

This despite the Canadian Charter’s guarantee of “freedom of conscience and religion.”