Oregon Senate Bill 494 will starve and dehydrate incompetent people to death.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In Oregon, the Senate is debating a deceptive bill (SB 494) that appears to simply replace the current advanced directives legislation, but in fact it promotes the withholding or withdrawal of nutrition and hydration (food and water) from people who are incompetent and not dying.

In 2006, I attended the World Federation of Right to Die Societies Conference. One of the topics discussed at the conference was death by voluntary stopping of eating and drinking (VSED). I remember the leader of the Dying in Dignity group (UK) stating that they do not promote VSED because, in their experience, it can be a terrible way to die.

Even though Oregon legalized assisted suicide 20 years ago, euthanasia is a prohibited. Euthanasia is an act whereby one person directly and intentionally causes the death of another person, whereas assisted suicide is an act whereby one person directly and intentionally assists another person in causing their own death. SB 494 opens the door to euthanasia of incompetent people in Oregon.

• Oregon 2015 assisted suicide report. Another 26% increase in assisted deaths.

SB 494 is deceptive and dangerous piece legislation because it is sold as a bill to update current legislation but in fact it changes current legislation to ensure that incompetent people, who may or may not be otherwise dying, can be intentionally killed by dehydration.

Advanced directives are only relevant when a person is incompetent to make decision for themselves. Therefore SB 494, by definition, does not ensure that competent people can die by dehydration, but rather that incompetent people can be dehydrated to death.

SB 494 states:

____ I do not want my life to be prolonged by life support. I also do not want tube feeding as life support. I want my health care provider to allow me to die naturally if my health care provider and another knowledgeable health care provider confirm that I am in any of the medical conditions listed below.

So what are the conditions that are listed below?

a. Close to Death.   

b. Permanently Unconscious. 

c. Advanced Progressive Illness.

d. Extraordinary Suffering.

If a person is nearing death, based on the actual condition of the person, withholding or withdrawing fluids may be appropriate. But this decision should be based on a factual assessment that providing food and water has ceased to benefit and may be harming the person. We do not oppose withholding or withdrawing fluids from a person, when providing it has become useless, burdensome or without benefit.

If a person is incompetent then the person cannot consent to death by dehydration. To withhold fluids, even if the person while competent expressed this desire, is in fact dehumanizing the person by denying that person the basic necessaries of life. Withholding or withdrawing fluids from a person, who is not otherwise dying, will cause the person to die by dehydration. This is often a terrible death, even when the symptoms are masked by morphine and other analgesics. It is also a form of abandonment to deny a person the basic necessaries of life.

• The Life-Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care will protect your life.

SB 494 opens the door to euthanasia of incompetent people in Oregon because death by lethal injection is more compassionate than dehydrating a person to death.

It is simply not necessary to change the current Oregon Advanced Directives legislation in order to specifically promote death by dehydration. SB 494 must be defeated.

Tell the Hawaii Legislature to Vote “No” on assisted suicide Bill SB 1129

This article was published on February 15, 2017 by Choice is an Illusion Hawaii.

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

SB 1129 legalizes physician-assisted suicide and allows euthanasia as long as actions are taken in “accordance” with the act.

The proposed Oregon style act applies to people with years or decades to live. The act is a recipe for elder abuse.

To view a legal analysis opposing the bill, with supporting documentation, click here. To view the analysis without the supporting documentation, click here.

Tell the Hawaii legislature to vote “No” on SB 1129. Contact info.

Highlights:

• Passing the proposed act will encourage people with years, even decades, to live, to throw away their lives. 

• The proposed act is sold as completely voluntary, but does not even have a provision requiring administration of the lethal dose to be voluntary. 

• Administration of the lethal dose is allowed to occur in private without a doctor or witness present. If the patient objected or struggled, who would know? 

• Elder abuse is already a not well controlled problem. Passing the proposed act will make the situation worse, to effectively allow legal murder. 

• Assisted suicide, even when apparently voluntary, can be traumatic for patients and families.

• Passage will create a risk of suicide contagion.

• The proposed Oregon-style “oversight” is a sham and will create the opportunity for a non-governmental entity to displace the proper role of government.

Tell the Hawaii legislature to vote “No” on SB 1129. Contact info.

Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA
Choice is an Illusion
President
206 697 1217

Not Dead Yet leader, Anita Cameron, submits testimony against Hawaii assisted suicide bill.

The testimony by Anita Cameron was posted on the Not Dead Yet website on Feb 14, 2017

Testimony in Opposition to SB 1129

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Good day. Thank you very much for allowing me to offer my thoughts to you today.

M

Anita Cameron

y name is Anita Cameron. I am a 51-year-old with multiple disabilities, two of which are degenerative, and one which will take my life. I am writing in opposition to SB 1129, the Death with Dignity Act.

I will not use the euphemism that is the name of this bill, but will refer to it by exactly what it is – physician assisted suicide. It is very important to be up front, clear and honest about what this is. Couching it in pretty language and hiding the truth is disingenuous at best, and dangerous, at worst.

I am Director of Minority Outreach for Not Dead Yet, a national disability rights organization opposed to physician assisted suicide and euthanasia as deadly forms of discrimination against people with disabilities. I live in Rochester, New York, but work with people of color around the nation.

My primary reason for opposition to this bill and others like it is that disabled BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People Of Color) are at particular risk of being harmed by it.

Our health care system is inherently racist. Studies show that Blacks and people of color receive inferior medical treatment compared to Whites. We are less likely to receive adequate treatment for heart conditions, diabetes, cancer and chronic pain.

The lives of people with disabilities are largely devalued by doctors and society, in general. The lives of BIPOC with disabilities are even more devalued due to racism and stereotypes about our communities.

As a Black Indigenous Latina, I could never wrap my head around the assisted suicide phenomenon. I thought that it was some odd thing that privileged White people were into. My thoughts were confirmed when I learned that the Pew Research Center recently found that while 54% of Whites supported assisted suicide, 65% of Blacks and Latinos opposed it.

Although assisted suicide requests in Oregon are lower among Blacks and people of color, that doesn’t mean that this won’t change in more diverse areas, especially as healthcare support lessens and assisted suicide becomes more acceptable due to the efforts of groups like Compassion and Choices.

Another reason for my opposition is that doctors would be the gatekeepers of people’s lives (anyone can ask for assisted suicide, but it is the doctor that decides who gets it), and can decide for you about your quality of life.

Further, doctors often make mistakes about whether a person is terminal or not. In June, 2009, while living in Washington state, my mother was determined to be in the final stages of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and placed in hospice. Two months later, I was told that her body had begun the process of dying. My mother wanted to go home to Colorado to die, so the arrangements were made. A funny thing happened, though. Once she got there, her health began to improve! Almost eight years later, she is still alive, lives in her own home in the community and is reasonably active.

Because of the racist nature of our health care system and the tendency of doctors to devalue the lives of disabled and people of color, assisted suicide has no place as an option in Hawaii. Please vote NO on SB 1129!

Thank you for your attention.

Anita Cameron is the disability rights group - Not Dead Yet, director of minority outreach.

New Mexico assisted suicide bill moves toward Death on Demand.

This article was published by National Review on February 12, 2017

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

Assisted suicide pushers are–to put it kindly–disingenuous.

For example, they often offer smooth assurances about “safeguards” to protect against abuse. Yet, new legalization schemes often dilute the traditional already-as-thick-as-water limitations in place where lethally prescribing is now legal.

For example, most laws require doctors to diagnose and prescribe lethally.

But a bill in New Mexico would open those who can help kill to nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants.

Generally a suicidal person needs to be terminally ill in US proposals (not so internationally), defined as 6 months left to live. (Some people so diagnosed never die of their condition, or live for years.)

But even that illusory protection is too strict for the New Mexico bill’s sponsors. Rather, it would institute far broader ”foreseeable” standard, first introduced by the Canadian government in its euthanasia law.

From House Bill 171:

F. “terminal illness” means a disease or condition that is incurable and irreversible and that, in accordance with reasonable medical judgment, will result in death within a reasonably foreseeable period of time.

“Reasonably foreseeable” could include illnesses like terminal breast cancer, in which longevity can be measured in years with aggressive treatment. Ditto, early Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

Heck when you get down to it, being a frail 90 years old could be construed as a “condition” qualifying for a lethal prescription, since the death of someone that age experiencing morbidity is certainly foreseeable.

And, like Washington State, the bill would require prescribers to lie on death certificates:

SECTION 4. [NEW MATERIAL] DEATH CERTIFICATE–CAUSE OF DEATH 

The cause of death listed on an individual’s death certificate who is deceased pursuant to self-administration of medical-aid-in-dying medication pursuant to the End of Life Options Act shall be the individual’s underlying terminal illness.

The point of such legally mandated corruption is to destroy all transparency.

And look at this: Doctors must meet professional standards of care when treating patients. But in helping kill them? All they–and caregivers–need is the “good faith,” a completely subjective standard, which also applies to caregivers and family members.

A. A person that acts in good faith to comply with the provisions of Section 3 the End of Life Options Act shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action for such action. 

This immunity extends to attending health care providers, a patient’s caregivers and another person that acts to assist the attending health care provider or patient.

And get this, there are no waiting periods required from request for a lethal prescription to its writing. That means a patient could be told she is foreseeably terminally ill, ask for the poison, and receive it, and kill herself on the same day. That’s almost akin to death on demand. Those pushing to permit medicalized killing pretend to want a very narrow license.

As I said above, and to put it as kindly as I can, that is… Aw to heck with tact: They are utterly mendacious. The Patients Rights Council (for which I am a paid consultant) offers a more detailed analysis of the New Mexico bill.

Canadian doctors are struggling with euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Jeff Blackmer, the former ethicist and current Vice President for medical professionalism with the Canadian Medical Association told Ryan Turnitty from Metro news that Canadian doctors are struggling with participating in "assisted dying" procedures.

doctors have been telling his group that they struggle with taking part in assisted-death procedures. 

He said physicians who have agreed to help a patient they knew well may find it difficult to help subsequent patients. 

“They will say, it was just too difficult and too traumatizing physiologically and it is not something I will go through again,” he said. “They really struggle with it, and for some of those that is the only one they will do.”

Blackmer said some of Canada's physicians are entirely ruling out providing end-of-life assistance to future patients. 

“In some provinces where they have a list of providers where they may be willing to participate, I know from speaking to colleagues that some of those lists are getting shorter.”

Note: When Blackmer says end-of-life assistance, he actually means lethal injection. 

Blackmer says he has not received reports of doctors being pressured to do euthanasia.

The reality is that killing another human being, even by request, is innately wrong and dangerous. People should be concerned about doctors who do not have a problem with killing their patients.

Crucial vote in the US Congress on Assisted Suicide.

Contact your member of Congress immediately to support Resolution 27.

The resolution to stop the Washington D.C. Assisted Suicide Act is coming up for a crucial vote. 

Now that H.J. Res 27 advanced from the House Committee on Oversight and Government on Monday February 13, by a vote of 22 - 14, Res 27 now must go to a vote in Congress soon.

Please email Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government urge him to bring H.J. Res 27 to a vote in Congress.

Contact your Member of Congress to vote for H.J. Res 27! Tell your member of congresss that you oppose assisted suicide and to vote YES on H.J. Res 27. 

• You can call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121; 
• Find your Representative with your ZIP code; or 
• If you know your Representative's name, look his/her number up on this list.

Once you are connected, tell the staffer on the line that you are a constituent and would like the Representative to know that you support Resolution 27 and you oppose assisted suicide.

Also, sign the petition supporting H.J. Res 27, to reject the DC assisted suicide Act 21-577.

For more information:

• Representatives Brad Wenstrup and Phil Roe: Washington DC assisted suicide Act puts patients at risk and prioritizes cost over compassion.
• Margaret Dore: Why the DC assisted suicide Act 21-577 must be rejected.

Dutch doctors oppose euthanasia for dementia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The NL Times reported today that 220 doctors in the Netherlands sponsored an ad to oppose euthanasia for people with advanced dementia.

The article by Janene Pieters published in the NL Times today, states that:

A group of 220 Dutch doctors took out an advertisement in NRC on Friday to show that they are against granting euthanasia to advanced dementia patients. The doctors believe it's wrong to give euthanasia based on a statement which the patient can no longer confirm. 

"Our moral reluctance to end the life of a defenseless human being is too big", the ad reads. Among the signers are also doctors specialized in helping patients die.

The article states that there have been three cases of people with advanced dementia who died by euthanasia since December 2015. The article explains:

The rules for euthanasia for elderly people with dementia were adjusted in December 2015. The Ministries of Public Health and Security and Justice changed the euthanasia guidelines to state that euthanasia can be granted to advanced dementia patients if they made a written declaration with this wish while they were still lucid. Before this adaption, a patient had to express the desire for death himself. But this is no longer required.

Recently a Netherlands euthanasia review committee decided that a woman with dementia who had previously stated in an advanced directive that she wanted euthanasia, that the doctor should not have put a sedative in her coffee and should not have had her family hold her down while lethally injecting her. But the committee also stated that the forced euthanasia was done in "good faith."

Euthanasia: 'safeguards' soon seen as 'hurdles.'

This article was published by National Review online on February 7, 2017

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

Just a quick post to show you how the slippery slope slip slides away.

Canada’s Supreme Court imposed a nationwide regime on the entire country. An obedient Parliament passed enabling legislation, including “safeguards” to protect against abuse.

Now, these supposedly vital protections — in actuality, they are loosey-goosey — are increasingly seen instead as “hurdles” that interfere with the right to be made dead.

Here’s an example from a journalist’s opinion column out of London, Ontario:

Canadians should be forewarned that the road to a medically assisted death is paved with speed bumps and potholes: that the law and its regulations were hastily devised and are imperfect; that the supply of doctors who are both willing and competent enough to safely assist in a patient’s death is severely limited; and that the pathway to release from suffering can take unexpected and sometimes inexplicable detours. 

Our parliamentarians should look to improve the legislation sooner rather than later.

These “improvements” will likely include such culture-of-death agenda items as a legal mandate for MDs to participate in killing — even if they have religious or moral objections — an expansion of eligibility to specifically include non-terminal conditions, and authority to kill Alzheimer’s patients who asked to be killed in an advance directive.

We need to think about this as the assisted suicide argument unfolds here: Accepting euthanasia changes a society’s collective consciousness.

The impetus to protect life soon morphs into a drive to embrace death.

Washington DC assisted suicide Act puts patients at risk and prioritizes cost over compassion.

This article was published by the National Review on February 3, 2017

Representatives Brad Wenstrup and Phil Roe

Two members of Congress, both physicians, urge caution.

Do no harm.” Three short words, but to physicians they represent a sacred charge. Three short words that now hang in the balance here in the District of Columbia, after the D.C. council passed the Death with Dignity Act (Act 21-577), legalizing physician-assisted suicide in the nation’s capital. In authorizing doctors to violate the Hippocratic oath of “do no harm,” physician-assisted suicide undermines a key safeguard that protects our nation’s most vulnerable citizens and helps to ensure our loved ones receive the best medical care when they need it most.

Rep Brad Wenstrup

As doctors, we are concerned about providing care and comfort to those facing the heart-wrenching difficulty of dealing with a terminal disease. It is an issue close to our hearts. However, for patients with terminal diseases who are not seeking treatment and instead coping with the complexities of end-of-life preparations, there are already a myriad of end-of-life care options currently at a patient’s disposal.

Instead of simply providing end-of-life comfort, D.C.’s new law is poised to do more harm than good. Even those disagreeing on the merits of the larger issue should take a close look at the text of Act 21-577, which leaves patients unprotected, doctors unaccountable, and our most vulnerable citizens at risk of having fewer medical options at their disposal rather than more. 

Sign the petition supporting H.J. Res 27, to reject the DC assisted suicide Act 21-577.

Phil Roe

Act 21-577 allows adults diagnosed with a terminal disease, having less than six months to live, to receive a prescription for medication to end their life. There are concerns that the definition of “terminal disease” is too broad, since most doctors will admit that accurately predicting life expectancy is almost impossible. Additionally, many conditions, such as diabetes and HIV, are considered “incurable and irreversible” or “terminal” if left untreated.

One of the greatest concerns that medical professionals have about Act 21-577 is its failure to adequately protect patients from potential coercion and abuse. When someone is considering ending his or her own life, regardless of the reason, he or she is in a vulnerable mental and emotional state. A report by the National Institute of Health found that, contrary to popular belief, pain is not the primary factor motivating patients to seek assisted suicide. More frequently cited motivations include depression, hopelessness, dependency, and loss of control or autonomy. Despite the fact that depression is commonly associated with a patient’s seeking assisted suicide, D.C.’s legislation does not make screening for mental illness mandatory. It also has no safeguard against pressure that family members, heirs, or health-care providers might exert on a patient to choose assisted suicide. This leaves some of our nation’s most vulnerable citizens — the disabled, the elderly, and those fighting mental illnesses — at the most risk under this law.

Additionally, a stunning lack of accountability is built into the bill, as doctors self-report their participation in assisted suicide and their compliance with regulation. Compliance with the bill’s limited safeguards is difficult to track because the bill directs doctors not to place the actual cause and manner of death (assisted suicide) on the death certificate, and the reporting requirements in the bill are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Once the prescription for lethal medication is filled, oversight is non-existent. This means that after the lethal medication, which can cause death in hours, leaves the pharmacy, it can be left unsecured in the medicine cabinet or on a bedside table. The lack of oversight opens up a number of potential nightmare scenarios: The medication could be accidentally taken by a child. It could be administered to a patient against his or her will. It could be used on an individual for whom the medication was not intended.

Perhaps most troubling of all, under the new law, patients may end up with fewer options, not more. D.C. residents who are not able to pay for health care out of pocket may find their options severely limited when facing a new diagnosis, suffering from a chronic illness, facing a disability, or struggling with mental illness. For certain medical conditions, assisted suicide could become the cheapest option. By some estimates, lethal medication costs no more than $300. The consequences could be harmful on two levels: given less incentive, innovative treatments could become less likely to develop, and then insurance programs could deny payment for costly treatment options even if they prove to be successful for many cases.

At age 53, Randy Stroup was living in Oregon after assisted suicide was legalized there. Uninsured and fighting prostate cancer, he was relying on Oregon’s state-run health plan for care when he applied for an expensive form of chemotherapy that his doctor recommended and was denied. Instead, he received a letter informing him that the state of Oregon would pay for physician-assisted suicide. As much as we wish it weren’t the case, cost factors into practical implementation of health-care policy. Because assisted suicide could end up being the cheapest “treatment,” it’s not difficult to see how patients could be incentivized to end their lives when the alternative is a costlier treatment option.

Ultimately, whatever its intentions, D.C.’s new law puts patients at risk and could limit their access to high-quality health care. It prioritizes cost over compassion. Since the Constitution charges Congress with legislative jurisdiction over D.C., Congress has a duty to carefully scrutinize this bill, its impact on medical patients, and its effects on our health-care system. We have weighed the legislation and found it wanting. D.C. residents deserve better. 

Sign the petition supporting H.J. Res 27, to reject the DC assisted suicide Act 21-577.

Brad Wenstrup, of Ohio’s second congressional district, is a member of the House of Representatives. Phil Roe represents Tennessee’s first congressional district.

Nazi euthanasia victims honoured in German Bundestag

This article was published by BioEdge on January 28, 2017.

B

German Bundestag

y Michael Cook

On January 27, 2017, the German Bundestag [Parliament] commemorated the 72nd anniversary of the liberation of the inmates of the Auschwitz concentration camp. This year the focus was placed on the 300,000 disabled victims of the notorious Aktion T-4 euthanasia program.

Under Aktion T-4, beginning in 1939, people were gassed or given a lethal injection and cremated in six killing facilities in Germany and Austria. This helped the Nazi regime to refine its system for processing millions, rather than “just” thousands, of victims.

During the ceremony, a few relatives of victims related their stories. A philosopher, Hartmut Traub, narrated the story of his 27-year-old uncle Benjamin, who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, which had virtually became a death sentence in Nazi Germany.

In 1941 he was taken on an “outing” with 60 other inmates of a mental institution to Hadamar where they were executed with carbon monoxide. Gold teeth and the brains of more interesting “specimens” were removed.

“For six months, the dark clouds from the crematorium hung over the city, plainly visible for all to see,” said Hartmut Traub.

After the war many families tried to repress the stories of their murdered relatives.

German T-4 Euthanasia Memorial

“For a long time, the euthanasia victims were the forgotten victims,” Maike Rotzoll, Deputy Director of the Institute for the History and Ethics of Medicine in Halle, told Deutsche Welle. 

“That’s why it’s enormously important for us that this ceremony took place in the Bundestag. I think it’s also enormously important for the relatives, who experienced the topic being taboo for so many years, to be allowed to speak and for this group of victims to be honored in this way.”

• Peter Saunders: Lets not forget the lessons of history and the leading role that doctors played in the holocaust.
• Wesley Smith: Memorial to German Euthanasia victims.

Mary Kills People Promotes Euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The local radio station, that I listen to, is playing a commercial for Mary Kills People, a six part drama on Global Television in Canada.

People have contacted me wondering what to do about Mary Kills People. We are disgusted by media outlets who insist on promoting euthanasia and assisted suicide without having the honesty and professionalism to equally promote programs that offers an alternative point of view. 

I have personally not wasted my time watching Mary Kills People. I would first urge you to boycott the show. If you have watched the show email your assessment of Mary Kills People to: info@epcc.ca.

I urge all of our supporters to contact the CRTC and demand equal programming. 

Global needs to do a series on people with disabilities who live fulfilling lives, or people with a terminal illness who through effective symptom management and social supports live a fulfilling life until their death, or people who had a terminal illness who survived? We need real stories that provide hope, we need stories that promote caring not killing.

Programs that portray euthanasia as heroic, caring and maybe even daring, are promoting euthanasia. These programs don't show us the real life circumstances of a person who is lonely and afraid of suffering, and feel that they have no real alternative, these programs portray euthanasia as an act done by strong independent people. People we should emulate.

Social change is accomplished through drama that changes our ideas of what constitutes reality, what is a good death, what is murder and what is mercy.

I am also concerned about the contagion effect connected to programs that promote killing. 

This is not the first time Global has aired a program promoting euthanasia. In 2012 Global aired: Taking Mercy, a program that promoted eugenic euthanasia featuring: Robert Latimer, who killed his daughter with cerebral palsy, Annette Corriveau, who had two disabled adult children who she wanted euthanized and pro-euthanasia "ethicist" Arthur Schaefer. At that time, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities responded with strong opposition to portraying the lives of people with significant disabilities as - life unworthy of life.

Recently Liz Carr, a famous British actress who is also a leader of the disability rights group Not Dead Yet UK, produced a successful musical opposing assisted suicide called: Assisted Suicide: The Musical (Comments by Paul Russell). Carr, who is an incredible comedian, proves that opposing assisted suicide can also be entertaining.

You can respond to the propaganda by screening the Euthanasia Deception documentary in your community and by donating to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition production costs for our next video that is now being produced under the working title - Fatal Flaws.

Assisted suicide is antithetical to liberal values.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Charles Camosy

Charles Camosy wrote an excellent article concerning the assisted suicide bill in New York that was recently published in the New York Daily News titled: Assisted Suicide vs liberal values.

Camosy begins his article by describing the personal story that Assemblywoman Amy Paulin (D) says led to her supporting assisted suicide. Camosy acknowledges the pain that has led many people to support assisted suicide, but he argues that this compassion leads to unintended consequences.

No one can be unmoved by such stories. Those who support physician-assisted suicide do so out of place of deep compassion for vulnerable, suffering people. 

But most people who honestly contemplate the long-term consequences of this legislation realize that legalizing the practice does the opposite of what is intended. 

Such was the case in 2012 when Massachusetts had assisted suicide on the ballot. Polls indicated overwhelming support — only 19% wanted it to remain illegal. But as the people of the commonwealth began to study and understand the issue, support began to fade.

Camosy then explains why assisted suicide is not a liberal issue.

And while some think of physician-assisted suicide as a liberal cause, the rhetoric of most supporters is deeply conservative. Even libertarian: “Get big government out of our lives! Privacy! Freedom! My individual rights trump your view of justice!” 

That’s why the wife of the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, Victoria Kennedy, claimed that passing assisted suicide in Massachusetts would insult the memory of her husband. Physicians’ groups and disability rights organizations also let the public know they didn’t want to legalize this form of expedited dying. 

The results were astonishing. In just a few months, Massachusetts progressives turned the polls around and defeated the ballot measure. 

Camosy then explains why people are asking for assisted suicide and why it cannot be controlled

The reasons far more likely to be about not wanting to be a burden on others. 

But there is absolutely no way to control the reasons why anyone requests assisted suicide. Which leads to impossible questions: What’s the basis for limiting it to those who will die in six months; why not six years? Why need one be dying in the first place? We are told in other medical contexts, after all, that the state is not to get between a patient and her doctor. 

Think this is too dramatic? Consider the Dutch, who also highly prize freedom and autonomy, and have had euthanasia for several decades now. They first limited it to cases of “hopeless and unbearable suffering,” but just a few years ago, an otherwise healthy woman was killed via assisted suicide simply because she was losing her eyesight. 

We can see the beginnings of a similar slippery slope in Oregon, where doctors have seen assisted-suicide drugs kill depressed patients.

Camosy then differentiates assisted suicide from other liberal issues:

On other issues, liberals rightly focus on how laws affect vulnerable populations. Liberals in Massachusetts worried that older people, already thought to be a drain or burden in a culture which worships youth and capital production, might be pressured to consider assisted suicide. 

Those of us with progressive philosophies must instead unequivocally affirm the goodness of the existence of the old and sick. Especially when our consumerist culture tells them they have no net value. 

Given our American obsession with autonomy and freedom, this slope can do nothing but get even more slippery.

Charles Camosy is an associate professor at Fordham University.

Previous articles by Charles Camosy:

• Assisted suicide: An issue that loses its appeal when it is understood.

Why DC assisted suicide Act 21-577 Must Be Rejected.

This article was published by Choice is an Illusion - Washington DC on Jan 30, 2017

The bill to reject Act 21-577 is H.J. Res 27.

Sign the petition urging Congress to support H.J. Res 27 to overturn the fatally flawed DC assisted suicide Act.

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA[1]

• Prevent Non-voluntary Assisted Suicide
• Prevent Non-voluntary Euthanasia
• Prevent Legal Elder Abuse
• Prevent Suicide Contagion, Including for Young People
• Prevent People With Years or Decades to Live, From Throwing Away Their Lives
• Preserve Government Transparency and Integrity
• Don’t Let the District of Columbia Become Corrupt Like Oregon
• Prevent National and International Security Implications 

Source Material:

This fact sheet is based on a “Suicide Contagion Memo” and a “General Memo,” prepared by Margaret Dore, which can be viewed at the links cited in the footnotes below.[2][3]

1. Overview

Act 21-577 (the “Act”) is a deceptively written law that legalizes assisted suicide and euthanasia as those terms are traditionally defined.

2. Definitions

Suicide means the intentional taking of one’s own life.

Assisted suicide means that someone provides the means and/or information for another person to commit suicide.

When a physician provides the means or information, the practice may be termed physician-assisted suicide. This term, however, can be a misnomer in the context of the Act, which allows non-health care personnel such as the patient’s family members to actively participate in the lethal drug request process and administration of the lethal drug.

Euthanasia is the direct administration of a lethal dose to cause another person’s death.

3. Suicide Contagion

The Act is based on a similar law in Oregon, enacted in late 1997. By 2000, Oregon’s conventional suicide rate was “increasing significantly” and has continued to rise over time.This is consistent with a suicide contagion in which the legalization of physician-assisted suicide has encouraged other suicides. See Suicide Contagion Memo.

4. The Cost of Suicide

A recent Oregon government report states: “The cost of suicide is enormous. In 2012[2} alone, self-inflicted injury hospitalization charges in Oregon exceeded $54 million; and the estimate of total lifetime cost of suicide in Oregon was over $677 million.” Id.

Note that Oregon is a smaller population state.
* The Rest of this Fact Sheet is Based on Margaret Dore’s General Memo

5. The Act Applies to People With Years or Decades to Live

The Act applies to persons with a “terminal disease” with a prognosis of less than six months to live.

In real life, such persons can have years or decades to live due to misdiagnosis and because predicting life expectancy is not an exact science. Dr. Kenneth Stevens of Oregon says “There are always some people who beat the odds.’

In Oregon, which has a nearly identical six months to live criteria, this determination is made without treatment. Consider, for example, Oregonian Jeanette Hall who was given a terminal diagnosis of six months to a year to live. This was based on her not being treated for cancer. She decided to use Oregon’s law, but her doctor (Kenneth Stevens) stalled her and eventually convinced her to be treated instead. In a 2016 declaration, Jeanette Hall states: “This July, it will be 16 years since my diagnosis. If [my doctor] had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead.”

In Oregon, annual statistical reports list chronic conditions such as diabetes mellitus (diabetes) as underlying conditions sufficient to justify assisted suicide.

6. The Act Is a Recipe for Elder Abuse

Elder abuse is a significant problem in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States. Victims may even be murdered. The D.C. Department of Human Services states: “Typically, the abuser is a relative, frequently an adult child of the victim.”

The Act allows a patient’s adult child, who will financially benefit from the patient’s death, to actively participate in the lethal drug request process. In the context of an executing a will, similar conduct is used to prove coercion and undue influence.

Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight. No witness, not even a doctor is required to be present at the death. Even if the patient struggled, who would know?

7. The Act Creates the “Perfect Crime”

The Act requires the death certificate to list a medical condition as the cause of death, which prevents prosecution for murder as a matter of law. The Act also requires that use of the lethal drug not be disclosed on the death certificate, creating a legal cover up.

8. In Oregon, Even Law Enforcement Cannot Access Information Collected by the State

The Act contains language similar to Oregon’s law, which in Oregon is interpreted to bar even law enforcement from accessing information about deaths under Oregon’s law.

9. The DC Act Has Stronger Language, Which Can be Read to Bar Access to Information Under “Any Law.”

The Act will insulate the Department of Health from review by not only law enforcement, but arguably the courts and political authority.

10. Purported Mandatory Oversight by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner is a Sham.

The Act provides for mandatory review of every death under the Act by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. There is, however, no mechanism for the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner to know when “every death” occurs. The purported mandatory oversight is a sham.

11. Malpractice and Medical Predators

The Act gives the attending physician near complete control over the death process, including explicit authorization to sign the death certificate. See the Act, § 6 (g). Doctors will be able to use the Act to hide malpractice. The door will also be opened to give cover to medical predators, such as a Dr. Michael Swango, who just like to kill people.

12. A National and International Security Implication

The Act applies to a person who “resides” in the District of Columbia, which includes members of Congress and the Senate, and certainly the President of the United States. Foreign government nationals such as ambassadors also reside in the District of Columbia. With this circumstance, political motivations, both here and abroad, could come into play with the prospect of a perfect crime in which even law enforcement is blocked from obtaining information. The Act has national and international security implications. For this reason alone, the Act must be rejected.

13. Physician-Assisted Suicide Can Be Traumatic for Patients and Families

In 2012, a European research study addressed trauma suffered by persons who witnessed legal physician-assisted suicide in Switzerland. The study found that one out of five family members or friends present at an assisted suicide was traumatized. These people, “experienced full or subthreshold PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) related to the loss of a close person through assisted suicide.” I have seen this in my cases, plus trauma for the patients as well.

14. Pain Is Not the Issue

I am not aware of any case in which a person has used Oregon’s law for uncontrolled physical pain; the Oregon statistics do not make this claim (they talk about "concerns" of "inadequate pain control or concern about it"). (Emphasis added).

Footnotes:
[1] Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA is a lawyer in Washington State where assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal. She is also president of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia. While in DC, she can be reached at 206-697-1217 and margaretdore@margaretdore.com See also www.margaretdore.com, www.choiceillusion.org and http://www.choiceillusiondc.org
[2] The Suicide Contagion memo can be viewed at this link:
http://www.choiceillusiondc.org/2017/01/in-oregon-other-suicides-have-increased_21.html
[3] The General memo can be viewed at this link:
http://www.choiceillusiondc.org/2017/01/memorandum-to-members-of-congress-and_75.html
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Swango

Netherlands review committee says euthanasia without consent on woman with dementia was done in "good faith."

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A Netherlands Regional euthanasia Review Committee has decided that a forced euthanasia done on a woman with dementia, where the doctor sedated the woman by secretly putting the drugs in her coffee, was done in "good faith." The committee chair is also urging that the case be reviewed by the court, not to punish the doctor, but to set a precedent concerning these acts.

Guilia Crouch stated in her report in the Mail online: 

The doctor secretly placed a soporific in her coffee to calm her, and then had started to give her a lethal injection. 

Yet while injecting the woman she woke up, and fought the doctor. The paperwork showed that the only way the doctor could complete the injection was by getting family members to help restrain her. 

It (the paperwork) also revealed that the patient said several times 'I don't want to die' in the days before she was put to death, and that the doctor had not spoken to her about what was planned because she did not want to cause unnecessary extra distress. She also did not tell her about what was in her coffee as it was also likely to cause further disruptions to the planned euthanasia process. 

The Review Committee concluded that the doctor 'has crossed the line' by giving her the first sleeping medicine, and also should have stopped when the woman resisted.

Janene Pieters reporting for The Netherlands Times stated:

The review committee determined that the woman's declaration in her will did not clearly state that she wanted to be euthanized after being admitted to a nursing home. The words "when I myself find it the right time" does not take into account a situation in which the woman was no longer mentally competent. The committee can understand how the doctor read it as a well-considered wish, but still feels that it was too broad an interpretation. 

The committee also concluded that the doctor "crossed a line" by giving the woman the first dose of sedative secretly - hidden in a cup of coffee. And that the doctor should have stopped at the woman's movements at the end. Even though it is possible that the movements were purely physical reactions, it can not be certain.

Jacob Kohnstamm, who is the chair of the Regional euthanasia Review Committee, wants the case brought to court to create a precedent to enable other doctors to lethally inject people with dementia, without consent, and without fear of legal repercussions. According to the article in the Mail online: 

Kohnstamm said he was in favour of a trial: 'Not to punish the doctor, who acted in good faith and did what she had to do, but to get judicial clarity over what powers a doctor has when it comes to the euthanasia of patients suffering from severe dementia.'

Purchase the Euthanasia Deception documentary.

So lets, examine the facts surrounding this death by lethal injection: 

• The woman had dementia and was incapable of asking for euthanasia, 
• The declaration in her will was not clear, 
• She stated several times that she did not want to die, 
• She was not informed that a sedative was put in her coffee,
• Her family was required to hold her down so the doctor could lethally inject her.
• The Regional Review Committee found that it was done in "good faith."
• The Regional Review Committee wants the court to hear the case to set a precedent approving the lethal injection of people with dementia, who cannot consent.

As I have said in the past, euthanasia is out-of-control in the Netherlands.

Charles Lewis: Join us in opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

By Charles Lewis, EPC board member.

Last June, I was invited to speak to a Catholic parish north of Toronto. It was my 56th talk though this one turned out to be different. First off, it was the largest crowd I had spoken to – close to 400 showed up. It was heartening but also bitter sweet.

The day before my talk, Parliament did what I always hoped would never happen in this country: it made euthanasia legal. I felt a combination of anger and nausea.

Then I realized that I had to suddenly come up with a new talk. The law was now a reality but up until that point I never thought of what I would say once euthanasia became a reality.

Every talk prior that summer morning had been intended to push the government to delay making euthanasia legal through the notwithstanding clause – a constitutional safety valve to delay controversial Supreme Court of Canada decisions.

So I told the crowd that we were in new territory -- that from here on in we would have to realize that no political party was going to save us. We were on our own and that would be the reality we would have to deal with. I also said that no matter how safe the pro-death side claimed the law to be it would be loosely interpreted and eventually formerly expanded. I spoke about the lack of good palliative care in Canada and the need to keep lobbying for more.

After that talk I decided to take a break. There was something about speaking about euthanasia day after day that effected my soul. I also wanted to deal with personal health issues and to start to think seriously about what I would say now. Most of us who do this work are learning as we go.

I continued to write about the issue and when anyone would ask me about my opposition I would gladly explain it; and when someone asked me whether I thought the battle lost I would say no.

Then a few months ago I realized it was time to jump back into the fight. I wanted to make sure I learned from the past few years in order to make these life-saving talks more effective and to reach the maximum number of people.

So I created a group of eight people utterly committed to the cause of warning people of the dangers of euthanasia. I say “I” created the group but we are all equal partners in this. Some, like Moira McQueen, the director of the Canadian Catholic Bioethics Institute have been doing this long before I came on the scene.

Anyone who wants a speaker in the greater Toronto area should email Charles Lewis at: charleslewis@rogers.com"

We had our first meeting in early January. The only qualifications for joining were an absolute opposition to euthanasia and a desire to help people opt for life instead of suicide. While speaking is important there was the other main duty of letting everyone each of us knows that there are now speakers available and arranging an event is easy.

You can also join the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Since I am semi-retired and have the greatest free time of others in the group I became the hub. Each person in the group lets me know when they are speaking and I in turn let the others know. This means we are all not lobbying the same parishes and groups. It also means we can attend the talks of others. I am convinced this is important because each person brings something new to the anti-euthanasia argument. And none of us should be above using effective arguments that we had not thought of before.

I am in charge of gathering literature and delivering it to others to distribute at their talks.

The group is already bearing fruit. Ephraim Radner, a professor at Wycliffe College and a group member, has already organized a seminar for students and St. Augustine students on the afternoon of Feb. 8 at Wycliffe.

We are also helping Alex Schadenberg set up an evening at St. Michael’s College, at the University of Toronto campus, at which the film The Euthanasia Deception will be shown followed by a panel discussion. The date is to be announced.

In terms of arguments we are making that still is up to the individual and for some of us a work in progress.

Last week I gave my first talk since last June. I gave my audience a brief background about how we go here. I then talked about how the law as written is not safe but open to interpretation and that from June to the end of the year 784 Canadians have died via the needle or some poison cocktail. I also noted that in December Health Canada struck a committee to look at expanding the law to include teenagers and those suffering from mental illness.

Finally I gave some ideas of what each person needs to do. Since I was speaking at a Catholic parish I suggested that a point person, or two be in charge of finding out whom in their faith community was struggling with severe illness. Then to ensure those people, especially those suffering alone, received visits and help with such things as meals, picking up drugs at the pharmacy and medical visits.

I’m of the belief that someone who feels loved and taken care of is less likely to take the euthanasia route.

I also said it was time that everyone begin to understand the dangers of euthanasia. And that it was important to fully understand the position of the pro-euthanasia side in order to more effectively respond.

I hope other communities will follow our model. It is never going to be enough but as the Jewish Talmud declares so wisely:

“Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.”

Charles Lewis is a Toronto speaker and writer. His columns appear twice a month in the Catholic Register.