Australian Medical Association re-affirms opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide

This article was written by Paul Russell, the director of HOPE Australia, and published on the HOPE Australia website on November 24.

Paul Russell

Today (24th November 2016) the Australian Medical Association released its new policy on euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The policy review is a five-yearly process that involved significant consultation and surveying of members ahead of the development of the final document released today.

The two page document changes the focus somewhat by opening with various affirmations about the AMA's commitment to making quality end-of-life care available to all Australians:

1.4 All dying patients have the right to receive relief from pain and suffering, even where this may shorten their life. 

1.5 Access to timely, good quality end of life and palliative care can vary throughout Australia. As a society, we must ensure that no individual requests euthanasia or physician assisted suicide simply because they are unable to access this care.

The AMA rightly calls for action by all Australian governments:

1.6 As a matter of the highest priority, governments should strive to improve end of life care for all Australians through: the adequate resourcing of palliative care services and advance care planning; the development of clear and nationally consistent legislation protecting doctors in providing good end of life care; and increased development of, and adequate resourcing of, enhanced palliative care services, supporting general practitioners, other specialists, nursing staff and carers in providing end of life care to patients across Australia.

The statement includes a clear direction to doctors on their responsibility should a patient ever ask for euthanasia or assisted suicide:

2.1. A patient’s request to deliberately hasten their death by providing either euthanasia or physician assisted suicide should be fully explored by their doctor. Such a request may be associated with conditions such as depression or other mental disorders, dementia, reduced decision-making capacity and/or poorly controlled clinical symptoms. Understanding and addressing the reasons for such a request will allow the doctor to adjust the patient’s clinical management accordingly or seek specialist assistance.

The key paragraph that retains the AMA's opposition:

3.1 The AMA believes that doctors should not be involved in interventions that have as their primary intention the ending of a person’s life. This does not include the discontinuation of treatments that are of no medical benefit to a dying patient.

The statement acknowledges that there are divergent views in the medical fraternity just as there is in Australian society. They acknowledge, correctly, that law and public policy in this area is the preserve of our parliaments and they insist on being consulted and included in any debate on the matter.

This last observation, though a general principle no doubt, could just as easily be a reflection on the lack of consultation with the AMA and other medical bodies evident in the recent South Australian debate.

The AMA was clearly intent upon using the release of this new policy as an opportunity to educate the public. From the press release:

"Dr Gannon said the AMA recognises that good quality end of life care can alleviate pain and other causes of suffering for most people, but there are some instances where it is difficult to achieve satisfactory relief of suffering. 

“There is already a lot that doctors can ethically and legally do to care for dying patients experiencing pain or other causes of suffering,” Dr Gannon said.

“This includes giving treatment with the intention of stopping pain and suffering, but which may have the secondary effect of hastening death. This is known as the principle of double effect,” Dr Gannon said.

While the statement is exceptionally clear, the media reporting has been very shabby.

The Australian ran with the headline: Most doctors would help terminally ill die: AMA. The Fairfax Press: Four in 10 doctors want voluntary euthanasia, Australian Medical Association survey shows.

The Fairfax headline is at least accurate. Indeed, as the story states 38% of the doctors who completed the AMA survey said that doctors should be involved in euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. But, according to Fairfax, 50% said that doctors should not be involved.

The survey, according to AMA President Dr Michael Gannon, will not be made public until the membership has seen the results. It would seem that some of the references in the articles may well be to slightly different questions.

For example, The Australian says that 55% of doctors were in favour of retaining the existing policy; that's not the same result and probably not the same question referred to above. The Australian calls the results on the policy question 'relatively close' at 55-45. Not so. Only 30% of doctors, according to the same article were in favour of a policy change to 'neutral' on euthanasia while 15% were undecided.

The Australian's headline: Most doctors would help terminally ill die, is misleading. The article explains:

"Crucially, an even clearer majority of AMA members said if voluntary euthanasia were made legal at the state and territory level, doctors should be involved in helping terminally ill people die rather than dig in on principle and boycott the process."

That's a far more nuanced position than the headline suggests.

It tells us that while doctors don't want a change to the law, that if it is changed they think they have a role. This may be because they see no problem with patient killing but it may also indicate, for those not ethically or morally opposed, that better that doctors do it rather than cowboy operators. It suggests, as Dr Gannon confirms, that doctors see that they have a role in protecting their patients.

This is also borne out by the fact that the variation in results to the two questions on retaining opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide and whether a doctor should be involved suggests that some doctors who opposed any change in policy still thought that doctors had a role. This, it seems, reflects the understanding of the second question that it is not about doctors who are keen and willing to kill, but something much more than that. As Dr Gannon summarised:

“What did surprise me is that our members have made it very clear that if society moves, they want doctors involved in euthanasia. A conservative view might be that this is not medicine, that ending patients’ lives is not what doctors do and that role should go to another group in society, maybe a new professional group.”

I could go on about The Australian's new-found enthusiasm for euthanasia. That's annoying enough but sloppy journalism really gets me going. Here's a classic example (The Australian):

"The replacement policy states that a failure by doctors to initiate or continue life-prolonging measures for a dying patient does not constitute euthanasia."

Failure? That implies negligence; the doctor 'failed' to do his or her job. What rot! The policy says nothing of the sort:

2.2 If a doctor acts in accordance with good medical practice, the following forms of management at the end of life do not constitute euthanasia or physician assisted suicide: not initiating life-prolonging measures; not continuing life-prolonging measures; or the administration of treatment or other action intended to relieve symptoms which may have a secondary consequence of hastening death.

Doesn't sound like 'failure' to me.

In closing, we welcome the AMA's policy statement and its affirmation that 'doctors should not be involved in interventions that have as their primary intention the ending of a person’s life.' We also welcome the educational initiatives and the call for better access to quality care for all Australians.

The survey recorded something like 4000 responses from a membership of some 30,000 doctors Australia wide.

Two Winnipeg hospitals will not offer euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Concordia Hospital Winnipeg

CBC News Manitoba reported yesterday that two Winnipeg hospitals will not be offering assisted death, Laura Glowacki reported on November 18 that Concordia and St Boniface Hospitals have informed the public that they will not offer assisted death to their patients. According to the CBC News report:

A spokesperson for St. Boniface Hospital said while the institution is not participating in MAID, it will work with patients to facilitate a transfer. 

Concordia Hospital said it will treat patients requesting MAID with "compassion" and connect them with the provincial medical assistance in dying clinical team. 

The WRHA told CBC it has accommodations for patients who live at or are being treated in a faith-based facility to receive MAID at another facility. 

"This ensures people from across the province can access the service, while respecting our commitment to the faith-based facilities," said a WHRA spokesperson. 

In Canada there are two legal forms of medically assisted death: the first involves a health practitioner injecting a drug, called voluntary euthanasia. In the second, a health practitioner provides or prescribes a drug that is self-administered to cause death, known as medically assisted suicide.

In other words, both institutions will not offer euthanasia or assisted suicide on their premises but they will not stop their patients from having their death arranged through another facility. Conscience rights for health care professionals and institutions protects people who oppose medical killing from being pressured into death by lethal injection.

Assisted suicide - doctors should have conscience rights too.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Politicians, Harold Albrecht MP and Michael Harris MPP held a round table discussion on conscience rights in Kitchener yesterday. Luisa D'Amato, wrote an excellent report for the Kitchener-Waterloo Record on the event. D'Amato begins by writing:

Physicians are supposed to save lives, not hasten death. 

So it's not surprising that some doctors are having problems seeing how they fit into Canada's new law that legalizes physician-assisted suicide for some patients. 

It turns out that conscientious objectors like Sandra Brickell, a physician who works in Kitchener hospitals, are not protected. 

"When somebody wants to end their life, it goes against what we've been trained to do," she said at a meeting Friday with several other doctors, Kitchener-Conestoga MP Harold Albrecht and Kitchener-Conestoga MPP Michael Harris. 

"I cannot truthfully say there is no life worth living," Brickell said.

D'Amato then explains that in Ontario conscience rights are not legally protected:

Last summer, Parliament passed the law allowing those with a "grievous and irremediable medical condition" to die with the assistance of health-care professionals. 

But in Ontario, there is no provincial law protecting doctors who cannot perform assisted dying because it is against their religious or ethical beliefs. 

The absence of a law leaves physicians in the hands of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which regulates doctors. The college says doctors don't have to do the procedure themselves, but they are required to refer the patient to a physician who will. It's called an "effective referral." 

Brickell says this still compels her to participate, indirectly.

Amato then reports her concerns about how the assisted suicide law works:

She has profound concerns about how assisted suicide — which was mandated for Canadians by a Supreme Court decision last year — would work. 

What if the patient feels like too much of a burden on family members? What if an underfunded, overworked health-care system feels the pressure to move the patient along? What if the wish for suicide was something that could be treated with the right mental-health medications? 

Brickell understands that the new law gives patients the right to die with assistance. But she wants her rights, too. And that's the right to step away. 

In Alberta, patients whose doctors decline to participate in euthanasia can have their care transferred to another doctor if they're in hospital. If they're at home, they can call a number that provides access to a wide range of services, including physician-assisted suicide. Either way, the patient can access the service without the participation of his or her doctor. 

But in Ontario, there is no such solution. Doctors must either provide the service or refer the patient to another doctor who will. Disobey, and you could lose your licence.

Bioethicist, Udo Schuklenk disagrees. He wants students who oppose euthanasia to be denied access to medical school:

There could be other repercussions down the road. One bioethicist at Queen's University, Udo Schuklenk, has suggested that students who couldn't set aside their moral values shouldn't be admitted into medical schools.

Harris and Albrecht support conscience rights:

Harris and Albrecht, who pushed in Parliament for respect for conscientious objectors, listened carefully to Brickell and the others on Friday. 

Harris, an opposition MPP, said he will now make the case to the Ontario ministry of health and the attorney general to create legislation that better protects these conscientious objectors. 

I hope the Ontario government listens and agrees.

Conscience rights for medical professionals are essential. It is one thing to give doctors the right in law to lethally inject their patients, it is another thing to force doctors to participate.

Previous articles on conscience rights for medical professionals.

• I am just trying to live by my conscience.
• National Post: Doctors conscience rights must be upheld.
• Letter writing campaign: Protecting conscience rights for medical professionals.

Remarkable turnabout in the middle of the night. Euthanasia bill defeated in South Australia.

B

Paul Russell

y Paul Russell

Director of HOPE Australia

The second bill this year, the Death with Dignity Bill 2016, came closely on the heels of an abandoned recent attempt in the same South Australian Parliament to enact a ‘Belgium style’ bill. That bill was deemed to be a bridge too far for the parliament. The substitute new bill was seen by many to be more moderate – a ‘good-cop-bad-cop’ scenario.

The bill provided for assisted suicide as a preference but with euthanasia for people who, for whatever reason, cannot take the lethal drug themselves. Once the death is approved, there are no further checks or safeguards, including that further consent (in the case of euthanasia in particular) is not required.

No authorized person need be present at an assisted suicide, placing people in their homes at particular risk.

For the first time in the history of the Lower House of the Parliament, the bill passed the first hurdle (called the second reading) by a margin of 27 votes to 19. As recently as 12 hours before the debate, the numbers were thought to be slightly in favor of the NO vote. Such has been the volatile nature of these debates over the last six weeks that change and uncertainty has become the norm.

South Australian Parliament

A small number of MPs who supported the vote spoke of concerns with the bill but were willing to see the debate continue. This reflects the culture drift where fewer people seem to hold moral or ethical objections that would provide them with a sense of certainty about such matters. Instead, we see an increasing number who see no problems with patient killing or helping people to suicide in philosophical terms, swayed singularly by such matters as safeguards only.

The debate moved on to the committee stage where clauses are debated and questions can be asked of the mover of the bill. Running late into the night–in fact, all night–those opposed to the bill and others exposed many of the shortcomings.

The bill’s mover, Dr. Duncan McFetridge, seemed unable at times to answer questions about his own bill. This is perhaps unsurprising considering that the bill was introduced in an unseemly hurry and was drafted by a third party on McFetridge’s behalf.

When pressed on the question of “doctor shopping,” for example, it took considerable time for McFetridge to acknowledge that a person could, indeed, shop around for the answer that they want.

That a small number of MPs held reservations gave some hope that the situation at the second reading might be redeemable. That would require four MPs to reverse their vote.

That was a tall order in a chamber of 47 persons.

The final vote was taken at 4:02 am. The house divided 23 votes to 23. The bill was defeated on the casting vote of the Speaker.

There is no precedent for what took place in the early hours of this morning. History made at the second reading and then made over in the defeat of the bill at the last hurdle!

South Australia defeats euthanasia bill - again.

By Alex Schadenberg

International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

South Australian Parliament.

The Euthanasia bill in the South Australian legislature was defeated this morning. According to Australia's ABC News:

...the Death with Dignity bill from Liberal MP Duncan McFetridge was examined clause by clause and a conscience vote was tied at 23 votes for and against. 

Speaker Michal Atkinson then used his casting vote to decide against the bill and end the debate.

The final vote was cast at 4 am in the morning.

Read: Remarkable turnabout in the middle of the night. Euthanasia bill defeated in South Australia.

This was the fourteenth euthanasia bill to be defeated in the South Australian legislature over the past few years.

According to ABC news, Mr. McFetridge stated that another euthanasia bill will be introduced soon.

Paul Russell, the director of HOPE Australia, was ecstatic with the victory.

The defeat of the euthanasia bill came after months of work.

South Australia has been the epicenter of the euthanasia debate in Australia for many years. Just one month ago, Steph Key withdrew her euthanasia bill, in response to criticism with only a few days later Duncan McFetridge tabling his bill.

The euthanasia lobby appears to be wearing down the opposition in the South Australian legislature by constantly bringing forth new euthanasia proposals (drip by drip). Maybe the South Australian legislature should simply say, no more, at least for now. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition encourages its supporters to thank Paul Russell in its successful campaign by giving HOPE Australia a donation.

Woman dies by euthanasia, may only have had a bladder infection.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I was contacted by a person, whose Aunt died by euthanasia, even though she may have only had a bladder infection. The person emailed me the following letter explaining what happened, outlining how the supposed safeguards in Canada's euthanasia law are ineffective and ignored by euthanasia doctors who are deciding who lives and who dies. 

The letter is edited for privacy:

My Aunt ... was just Euthanized today Nov 9, 2016 by Lethal injection at ... Retirement Home ... in BC. We were called to a meeting at ... Hospice on Nov 7, 2016 to be told for the first time that our ... Aunt had requested to be Euthanized. We were told it would take at least 10 days. My sister and I argued that our Aunt appears to only have a severe Bladder infection. The Hospice Doctor said he would look into having her urine tested for this before they proceed with Euthanasia. 

The same day we were sent over to our Aunts apartment to witness the doctor (that is going to give our Aunt the Lethal injection) having our Aunt sign the document to give her the permission to do the euthansia. After the Doctor read out the document to My Aunt; the doctor went and got a woman that works in the kitchen to initial all the questions for my Aunt. The Doctor brought two people to be witnesses into the room that had been witnesses for other Euthanizations. 

When we mentioned the urine tests we had asked to be done; the euthanizing Doctor said it would make no difference because my Aunt has already signed permission for her euthanasia. The euthanizing Doctor said she is going to put a rush on the Euthanasia. To my even more shock the Doctor gave My Aunt the lethal injection today. It all took less than three days from start to finish. The Doctor did the three Doctor visits to my Aunt in three consecutive days. I am so upset. 

This was so wrong ... name withheld.

This letter indicates that the euthanasia doctor was not concerned that the woman may only have had a bladder infection and the legally suggested 10 day waiting period was simply ignored so that the lethal injection occurred within 3 days before the woman could change her mind.

Sadly this letter proves that EPC's assessment of euthanasia Bill C-14 was correct. 

Bill C-14 required a 10 day waiting period unless the doctor waived the waiting period, meaning it was a false safeguard. 

Bill C-14 required the person's "natural death to be reasonably foreseeable" but at the same time the bill stated that the doctor or nurse practitioner who does the lethal injection must only be "of the opinion" that the person fits the criteria of the law. 

In other words, the law provided legal cover when a physician or nurse practitioner mistakenly kills someone.

The Aunt is dead and now it is too late to suggest that after 10 days her bladder infection may have cleared up and her request for lethal injection may have passed.

For more information read: New assisted dying law will claim unintended victims.

Assisted Suicide. Neutrality is not an option.

Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Orlando Sentinel published a guest column by Dr Frederick White, who is chair of the International ethics committee with the Willis Knighton Health System in Shreveport LA.

Dr Frederick White

White argues that neutrality on assisted suicide is not an option for the AMA. He argues that physicians cannot be neutral when being a direct conspirator in an act of death. White writes:

The central premise of physician-assisted suicide is this: A doctor should be allowed to kill certain patients. That is a stark reality, but it is the essence of the physician-assisted suicide movement. Let us not quibble over causation. A doctor who purposefully writes lethal prescriptions and gives them to patients intends to cause their deaths. 

And when the patients die from those intentionally toxic doses, the doctor is a proximate cause of death just as certainly as if the doctor had injected lethal drugs directly. 

Despite what advocates of physician-assisted suicide claim, this debate is not about autonomy. Patients with terminal conditions already have the autonomy to direct limitation or withdrawal of life-sustaining care, to request palliative and hospice care, and to even take their own lives. Physician-assisted suicide is about a method of death, about whether that method of death should allow a conspirator, and about whether that conspirator should be a doctor.

White explains that the position of a physician is never neutral:

...When doctors tell society that they do not have an opinion about physician-assisted suicide, they are abdicating a critical responsibility. 

Society has vested doctors with special rights and privileges concerning matters of life and death. Doctors decide whether to recommend a risky surgery. Doctors decide when to counsel a patient's family that life-sustaining treatment should be withdrawn. Society allows doctors that special standing by virtue of their training and experience, but also by virtue of their moral agency. Society expects that doctors will form moral judgments guided by their ethical codes. And on the most pressing life-and-death issue of our day, doctors cannot take a pass. They must choose — either a doctor will or will not be allowed to kill certain patients. 

White finishes his article by stating the fundamental question. 

If doctors and their medical societies think that doctors should be allowed to kill certain patients, then they should say so. And if not, then they should say so. Anything else is cowardice.

Direct involvement with killing patients can never be neutral.

Euthanasia debate 'ignored' Belgium experience

This article was written by Brian Kelly and published in the Sault Star on November 14. 

Kelly interviewed me in response to the upcoming screening of the Euthanasia Deception documentary in Sault Ste Marie on November 17.

How Canada's new euthanasia law will evolve worries Alex Schadenberg.

Alex Schadenberg

The Executive Director of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition points to assisted suicide being expanded to include children and persons with depression since Belgium introduced right-to-die legislation in 2002.

“We really ignored the direct experience of people with euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands,” Schadenberg said of the assisted suicide debate in Canada. Bill C-14 became law in June. “The same experiences in Belgium could very well happen here.”

He speaks Thursday at 7 p.m. at Quattro Suites and Conference Centre's Great Lakes Room. Schadenberg will screen a documentary, The Euthanasia Deception, released by his London, ON-based group in September. The 52-minute film has been screened in more than 100 communities.

Bill C-14 allows Canadians, who are at least 18, to receive medical assistance to die if they have “a grievous and irremediable medical condition.”

Schadenberg says the legislation's wording is “very loose” arguing a waiting period can be waived by a doctor. He also questions the bill's requirement that natural death be “reasonably foreseeable.”

“How do you define reasonably foreseeable?” said Schadenberg. “In my interpretation you really can't define reasonably foreseeable.”

A third concern centres on Bill C-14 being understood “the way the doctor wants to interpret it.”

“If I only have to be of the opinion that (the assisted death) meets the criteria of the law then anything I do is fair game because you could never say I did something wrong,” said Schadenberg. “You could say that maybe my opinion was mistaken, but you can't say that I wasn't of the opinion. The law itself uncuts any safeguard that might (be in the law).”

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition offers counselling to protect people “in vulnerable circumstances.”

“It's a crazy thing when you give somebody the power over life and death that some people will abuse it,” said Schadenberg. “That's what we've seen in both the Netherlands and Belgium, more so in Belgium.”

In September, a Catholic hospital in Vancouver refused the assisted suicide request of a former accountant who suffered from several health concerns including severe spinal stenosis, kidney failure and heart disease. The Catholic Church is opposed to euthanasia. Ian Sherer was transported to another hospital.

Schadenberg opposes the possibility of doctors and nurse practitioners being forced to help a person to die.

“Doctors have, and should be, recognized to have conscience rights especially since it's in our Charter (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms),” he said. “Why should that be taken away from a person who happens to work as a physician in a health care institution? Why would you force someone to do something that they consider absolutely wrong? It's one thing that it's done. It's a whole other thing to force someone to participate.”

Order the Euthanasia Deception documentary or contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition to participate in the showing of the documentary.

Euthanasia Deception documentary airing in communities.

The following media release was circulated in Sault Ste Marie on November 12, 2017.

Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will be airing the Euthanasia Deception documentary and speaking at the Quattro Hotel and Conference Centre, on Thursday November 17 at 7 pm.

Order the Euthanasia Deception documentary or contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition to participate in the showing of the documentary.

Throughout the debate to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, very few stories were told to Canadians about people who have been directly affected by euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The Euthanasia Deception documentary is based on personal stories by people in Belgium and the Netherlands concerning euthanasia.

Professor Tom Mortier loses his mother to euthanasia in Belgium. She was physically healthy but dies by euthanasia due to her depression.

Lionel Roosemont speaks about the social pressure upon their family to have his disabled daughter euthanized.

There is no charge for the event. Registration is not required. All are welcome.

Assisted suicide goes beyond 'Do No Harm'

Dr Will Johnston responds to New Times article.

Dr Will Johnston

The fatal flaw in Dr. Haider Warraich’s praise of assisted suicide and euthanasia (On Assisted Suicide, Going Beyond ‘Do No Harm’ Op Ed Nov 5, 2017) is his ungrounded assumption that it “requires patients to be screened for depression.”

 
That is not what these new laws say, or how they work out in the real world. In Oregon fewer than 5% of assisted suicide seekers are evaluated by a psychiatrist. (1)

 
Claiming that those who die under the Oregon law are “white, affluent and highly educated” tells us nothing about the loss of hope and meaning which sets the suicidal apart from others who have peaceful palliated deaths. 

 
The new Canadian euthanasia law tried to use “reasonably foreseeable” death as a criterion, but activist doctors euthanize sick depressed people who are nowhere near dying.(2) 

Now these activists clamor for euthanasia for psychiatric illness alone, and we are only 7 months from legalization. (3) 

Canada has created a system which offers and completes suicide-by-doctor for those whose personalities and disabilities put them at high risk. Jurisdictions filling Dr. Warraich’s prescription are indeed “going beyond ‘do no harm’”, unfortunately.

Will Johnston MD is the chair of EPC - BC.

<(1) https://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year18.pdf.

<(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/will-johnston/assisted-dying_b_12168266.html.

<(3)  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/assisted-dying-mentally-ill-1.3829839.

Disability rights group, ADAPT, urges President-Elect Trump to - Protect our lives from assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The disability rights group, ADAPT, sent an open letter to President-Elect Trump soon after his election victory urging him, on behalf of the disability community, to Protect our freedom and liberty, to Protect our lives, to Assure access to vital healthcare services, to Protect the rights of Americans with disabilities, and to Stop the torture of disabled Americans.

Under the heading - Protect our lives, ADAPT stated their clear opposition to assisted suicide and called on President-Elect Trump to act. Adapt stated:

At present, there are efforts to legalize physician assisted suicide. The Disability Community is strongly opposed to this policy change which will open the door for people with disabilities to have their lives ended by mistake, coercion, or abuse. We are glad to have found strong allies in the Republicans who oppose assisted suicide, and for the inclusion of that opposition in the 2016 Republican Party Platform. We are counting on you as President to refuse to sign any legislation making assisted suicide legal, to refuse to appoint to the Supreme Court Justices who support legalizing assisted suicide, and to ensure that our nation’s commitment to suicide prevention includes old, ill and disabled people.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urges President-elect Trump to ensure that every American has access to vital healthcare services and that every American is protected from assisted suicide.

Colorado voters give doctors the right to prescribe lethal drugs to assist the suicide of their patients.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

We are very saddened that Colorado voters have given their doctors the right to prescribe lethal drugs for the purpose of assisting their patients suicide.

The results were based on a massive assisted suicide lobby campaign that outspent the No on Prop 106 campaign by more than 2 to 1.

It is also based on a culture that fears a painful death with a healthcare system that does not effectively care for people at the most vulnerable time of their life. People also fear dying alone.

Soon after the election the assisted suicide lobby indicated that they may attempt to legalize assisted suicide in half of the US states in 2017.

More people need to become aware of the assisted suicide threat and actively oppose its legalization and we need to recognize the need for a caring culture.

We need a caring culture. 

A culture that cares for dying people. A culture that assures people that they will not suffer in their final days. A culture that can assure people that they will not die alone.

Giving doctors the right to assist the suicide of their patients only creates new cultural problems and it gives doctors power over life and death. Power that some doctors will abuse.

Links to more information about assisted suicide.

• Oregon 2015 assisted suicide report - another 26% increase.
• Oregon State Assisted Suicide Reports Substantiate Critics’ Concerns.
• Washington State 2015 assisted suicide report. Assisted deaths increase by 31.7%.

Don’t allow Vermont to force health professionals to assist in killing patients

This ADF media release was sent out on November 7.

The ADF is representing the Vermont Alliance for Ethical Health Care.

WHO: ADF Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden and ADF-allied attorney Michael Tierney
WHAT: Available for media interviews following hearing in Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare v. Hoser
WHEN: Tuesday, Nov. 8, immediately following hearing, which begins at 1:30 p.m. EST
WHERE: U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, 151 West St., Room 204, Rutland

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden and ADF-allied attorney Michael Tierney will be available for media interviews Tuesday following a federal court hearing in a health care professionals’ lawsuit against Vermont officials in two state agencies. The medical professionals are asking the court to stop those agencies from forcing physicians and other health care workers to help kill their patients while their lawsuit proceeds and are asking the court to reject the agencies’ request to dismiss the lawsuit.

ADF attorneys and Tierney represent the Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare and the Christian Medical and Dental Association, groups of medical professionals who wish to abide by their oath to “do no harm.”

“The government shouldn’t be telling health care professionals that they must violate foundational medical ethics in order to practice medicine,” said Aden, who will argue before the court Tuesday. “Because the state has no authority to order them to act contrary to that reasonable and time-honored conviction, we are asking the court to allow this lawsuit to proceed and to ensure that no state agency is able to force them to violate their ethics while this lawsuit moves forward.”

The state agencies, the Board of Medical Practice and the Office of Professional Regulation, are reading the state’s assisted suicide law to require health care professionals, regardless of their conscience or oath, to counsel patients on doctor-prescribed death as an option. Although Act 39, Vermont’s assisted suicide bill, passed with a very limited protection for attending physicians who don’t wish to dispense death-inducing drugs themselves, state medical licensing authorities have construed a separate, existing mandate to counsel and refer for “all options” for palliative care to include a mandate that all patients hear about the “option” of assisted suicide.

As the brief in support of the requested motion for preliminary injunction in Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare v. Hoser explains, “Vermont’s Act 39 makes the State the first and only one to mandate that all licensed healthcare professionals counsel terminal patients about the availability and procedures for physician-assisted suicide, and refer them to willing prescribers to dispense the death-dealing drug. Act 39 coerces professionals to counsel patients about the ‘benefits’ of assisted suicide—benefits that Plaintiffs’ members do not believe exist—and in addition stands in opposition to a federal law protecting healthcare professionals who cannot participate in assisted suicide for conscientious reasons.”

“Because Plaintiffs’ attempts to repeal or amend the law have proven futile, and enforcement is imminent,” the brief continues, “Plaintiffs…[ask] for a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing the provisions of Act 39…and its incorporated statutes…against their members for declining to counsel or refer patients diagnosed with ‘terminal conditions’ on the availability of physician-assisted suicide.”

Letter-writing campaign: Protecting medical professionals conscience rights.

Charles Lewis: Unbiased and ethical journalists exist.

By Charles Lewis

I attended the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition 2016 Symposium in Windsor, ON., recently. I am writing this to address something that deeply concerns me about what I heard, over and over, about the media.

Speaker after speaker blamed the media for much of the misinformation about euthanasia and a general hostility towards our cause.

The media is not perfect. But nor is any profession perfect. We all have encountered bad dentists, indifferent doctors, inept lawyers and lax government officials. Though the difference is most of us do not condemn the entire profession.

I will go as far to say that there are journalists whose biases get in the way of their reporting. I think this is especially true of the CBC.

I worked at the National Post for 15 years. I was an editor for half that time I was an editor and the rest I reported on religion. Many people saw my bias as a conservative Catholic come through, though I always tried to balance my pieces. But my audience, mainly conservative Canadians, applauded my point of view. In other words they did not mind my bias because it fit with their world outlook but they might condemn someone else with a liberal bias.

At the Windsor Symposium I stood up at one point to try to make the point that some of the country’s most prominent columnists — Margaret Wente of the Globe, Rosie DiManno of the Star, and Rex Murphy and Andrew Coyne of the National Post all raised serious questions about euthanasia.

But I soon realized that many in the audience had never heard of these fine journalists. Which made me wonder how anyone can judge the media when they are not aware of some of the prominent people in the profession.

I think something else needs to be explained — and this especially applies to print journalists. Over the past 15 years most newspapers have seen their newsroom staff gutted. Meaning for those left behind there is more work to do.

Even in good times putting out a newspaper is a monumental task. Every day there is a firm deadline. I wrote several thousand stories in my career. Some were features in which I had a week or several days to write. But most stories are done in a single day. More often still they are done in a matter of hours.

An editor will turn to a reporter at 2 p.m., four hours before deadline, and say she needs 800 words on something that just took place. That means that the reporter must get interviews lined up at lightening speed. If the reporter is luck, he finds the best people. If not he finds whom he can. In newspapers there is no arguing with the clock.

But here is the important point. No one should read a newspaper story as being definitive. A story should be read for the information it contains. If the story is about conscience rights for doctors, for example, what is important is what is new in the story: Did a court just rule against conscience rights? Is there a proposal to limit those rights?

At that point readers who really care about the issue need to do their own research. That is the beauty of the Internet. You can plug in key words and get a raft of information, much of it provided by conservative and religious sites. In other words, let the newspaper article, or the item on radio or a televised newscast, be your starting point.

Finally, and this applies mainly to newspapers, editorials and news are separate spheres. Editorial boards are supposed to reflect the views of the owners. For the most part reporters and editors, who produce what fills the rest of the paper, are not guided by editorials.

Let me now give you a list of some great websites where you will find great information that conforms more to what most of us see as the truth. However, one caveat: It is a big mistake to read only what you agree with. First off, by never reading the other point of view you will have no idea of the arguments they use. And if you do not know, how can you combat it? Also, even in those articles and editorials that seem to oppose us, there is often something that indicate the doubts of the writer. This could be an opening for dialogue.

Most writers like getting emails. The key is to be polite and not start off with accusations. Treat these people with the same dignity we afford each other.

So here are some sites to bookmark on your computer. Many of these will send you daily newsletters. They have good information and go through a process of rigorous editing — something important to make sure writers tell the truth or at least do not stretch it beyond all credibility.

Here they are: The National Review, National Catholic Register, Christianity Today, The Rebel Media, The Acton Institute, Catholic Civil Rights League, The Atlantic (at times) and Mercator Net, and The Wall Street Journal. This is partial list. Find your own sites and share them.

Finally, two of my favourite columnists work for the dreaded New York Times: David Brooks and Ross Douthat. These are highly ethical and conservative men and can be read for free. You would be wise to read them.

Euthanasia: When the suffering of one becomes the misery of others.

This article was published on the Vivre dans la Dignité blog on October 27.

Aubert Martin

Aubert Martin is the Executive Director of Vivre dans la Dignité

Recently, a lady told me that she had just lost her brother who died suddenly, three days after a fall on the sidewalk. Unfortunately, the circumstances of his death leave some doubt as to the exact cause of death. Is it due to his cancer, discovered a few days earlier? Is it related to his psychiatric problems? Is it a case of “strongly encouraged” euthanasia?

The lady has a lot of questions, but no answer will be given. Indeed, despite her legitimate doubts, nobody is able to enlighten or reassure her.

On one hand, Quebec’s College of Physicians asked not to include "medical aid in dying" on the death certificates of patients. Instead, doctors must identify the main disease of the deceased. Therefore, it is impossible, for those who survive the deceased, to find a paper trail if euthanasia is the actual cause of death.

On the other hand, the lady has been given the answer that her brother being dead, there is nothing they can do for her. This is the uncompromising truth of death: it is irreversible.

Thus, survivors like this lady find themselves left behind. Alone in their grief. They are set aside to preserve the supreme principle of the autonomy of individuals.

In legalizing euthanasia, society has crowned the splendor of individualism in balancing the weight of two pains: the suffering of an individual versus the suffering of their relatives. They have decreed that the suffering of relatives should not be considered in calculating the benefit of euthanasia.

To reinforce this point, the flattering and illusory portrait presented to the public always depicts the same picture: a family and an entourage who fully agree with the decision of their relative’s wish to die, and a medical team in total harmony with the family.

Of course, the reality is much more nuanced, and suffering is so much more widespread than the rosy photoshops offered by the promoters of euthanasia.

Imagine that your father was euthanized by a doctor without you having been consulted – as recommended by the law – and perhaps even without you being able to say one last goodbye. How would you feel: grateful or betrayed? How would you see this doctor who gave death to your father without consulting his own children? How would you mourn your father knowing he preferred the advice of two random doctors who judged, after meeting him briefly, that they approved of his desire to die?

The reality is that we may praise euthanasia with soft, buttered words, we may celebrate those who die with champagne and selfies, there will always be people who will have in their heart a painful sense of betrayal after the voluntary death of their relative.

But from now on, they will have to keep their pain to themselves until the end of their lives, since medical suicide is, more than ever, presented as the ideal way to die. Unfortunately, the story of the lady who lost her brother whom she loved so much illustrates the suffering that can result from euthanasia.

And it brings out a troubling question: where is the suffering of the relatives in the new equation of compassion?

Alternatives to euthanasia.

The following letter was published online on the National Post on November 1, 2016.

Re: ‘Dad Got The Death He Wanted,’ Brian Hutchinson, Oct. 29. 

I have a patient who is 92, lives alone, and is becoming more and more lonely and anxious as she gets frailer. Her son lives in another Canadian city, her daughter in the U.S. Her daughter and son-in-law looked around for a solution, and found a good one. They’re moving back to Canada, not here, but to another city where their jobs can be transferred, so they can live with their mother and ensure her happiness in the years she has left. All three are excited about it. They don’t see themselves as any kind of heroes: that’s just what you do for your mother if she needs it. 

Richard Brown’s son found a different solution for his father. He called in Vancouver’s "angel of mercy," Dr. Ellen Wiebe. She was only too happy to flout the law and the standards of her profession (as reported in the article) so as to deliver Brown from his troubles by euthanizing him. Yes, Dad got the death he wanted. But what other options was he offered? 

Dr. Catherine Ferrier, Montreal.

Dr Ferrier is the President of the Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia.

Québec euthanasia deaths higher than expected.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Québec euthanasia commission has reported that during the first 7 months of the euthanasia law there were 262 reported euthanasia deaths, a number that is much higher than expected. The annual report of the commission is based on euthanasia deaths from Dec 10 to June 30, 2016.

Caroline Plante reported in The Montreal Gazette that Québec's Health Minister, Gaétan Barrette, seemed surprised by the number of deaths:

He expressed surprise that since the law came into effect Dec. 10, 2015, 262 people have resorted to what the provincial government calls “end-of-life care” and what Ottawa refers to as voluntary euthanasia. 

“I mentioned many times that I was expecting about 100,” 

“It’s almost three times that. Actually, on a one-year period, it will be over 300 … that in itself is surprising to me.” 

The report says medical aid to die wasn’t administered for 87 requests: 36 of them did not meet the criteria set out in the law, 24 people changed their minds, 21 died before receiving the aid, one has asked for a delay and five requests are still being processed.

The Montreal Gazette article also reported that the health Minister may reduce the requirement that two independent physicians approve the death:

... the minister said he is considering making some adjustments to simplify the paperwork and ease the obligation of seeking a second opinion from an objective and independent doctor, who must agree that there is no hope of recovery. 

Barrette said in certain, more isolated towns, it is difficult to find a second doctor who is completely independent from the patient.

Barrette first extended the law last June when he stripped palliative doctors and institutions of their conscience rights by ordering them to participate in the euthanasia law. 

Ingrid Peritz reported in The Globe and Mail that of the 262 deaths, 21 failed to meet the legal requirements of the law: 

The report found that of the cases it examined, 21 failed to meet the legal restrictions. 

The vast majority of those – 18 – involved questions about the independence of the second doctor who is required to sign off on the assisted death. Mr. Barrette said the problem often arises in smaller communities where doctors know one another. 

Of the remaining three cases, two were instances in which assisted death was administered without proving the patient was at the end of life. In one case, it wasn’t proven that the patient was facing a serious and incurable illness, as required under the law. 

All 21 cases have been referred to Quebec’s College of Physicians, which will review them, a spokeswoman said.

There were 262 reported euthanasia deaths in the first 7 months of the euthanasia law. Since the Québec euthanasia law is based on the Belgian law and since nearly half of the assisted deaths in Belgium are not reported we wonder how many euthanasia deaths have actually occurred in Québec?

Important articles:

• Dutch euthanasia deaths continue to rise in 2015.
• Belgian 2015 euthanasia report: Deaths continue to rise.
• Study: More than 1000 Belgian deaths were hastened without request in 2013.

Massachusetts Lawsuit seeks to euthanize definition of assisted suicide.

This article was published by National Review online on October 27, 2016

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

Here we go again. Having failed to convince Massachusetts voters to legalize assisted suicide in 2012, and having repeatedly failed to get such legislation passed, the former Hemlock Society now Compassion and Choices is bringing a lawsuit to declare that assisted suicide is a right because it isn’t suicide. From the WCBV story: 

Two Cape Cod doctors are asking a Massachusetts court to rule that it’s not a criminal act for physicians to prescribe lethal doses of medication to mentally competent patients with terminal illnesses. 

A lawsuit was filed Monday in Suffolk Superior Court by Dr. Roger Kligler, who has terminal cancer, and Dr. Alan Steinbach, with the help of Compassion & Choices, a Denver-based nonprofit that works on end-of-life choices. It also asks the court for an injunction to prevent criminal prosecution of what it calls “medical aid in dying,” which the group says is not the same as assisted suicide.  

The group says in medical aid in dying, the patient controls the process from beginning to end. In assisted suicide and euthanasia, someone else’s actions and choices cause death.

What drivel. Euthanasia, where legal, is usually asked for by the person killed. Ditto assisted suicide. 

Besides, if being in “control of the process”–a false premise as the whole point is to have an MD validate the hastened death–somehow makes self-killing not suicide but something else, what does terminal illness have to do with it? I mean, what constitutional rights are so narrowly limited to a minority of people? 

This same gambit has failed before in Connecticut and New Mexico. 

But think about the attempted societal corruption! Typical of these zealots who want to expand the culture of death by whatever means necessary, including by euthanizing the integrity and meaning of language.

More information on this topic:

• Two Massachusetts doctors file case to give them the right to prescribe lethal drugs for assisted suicide.