Tell Governor Mills to veto the Maine assisted suicide bill.

I have bad news: 

Governor Janet Mills signed LD 1313 into law. We had hoped that she would Kill the Bill but now she has agreed to allow doctors to kill patients.  Alex Schadenberg

By Mark Hodges (EPC researcher)

Last week the Maine House of Representatives and Senate passed a bill that would legalize doctors to proscribe lethal drugs to patients who ask to be killed.

Democratic Governor Janet Mills has ten days to sign LD 1313 into law. Mills said. 

“I’m not really sure about it,”   

“I’m still talking to people on both sides.”

But even if she does nothing, after those ten days it will become law automatically. We need you to tell Gov. Mills to veto the assisted suicide bill.

Governor Janet Mills
1 State House Station 
Augusta, ME 04333
Tel: 207-287-3531 
Fax: 207-287-1034
Email: governor@maine.gov

The Democratic-controlled state House approved the death bill by one vote, 73 to 72. The Democratic-controlled state Senate was also close, with a 19 to 16 vote.

Those who oppose assisted suicide say the one-margin vote is yet another example of how important it is to vote for candidates that oppose assisting suicide. The one vote margin also shows how divided the state of Maine is on assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg

Assisted suicide bill LD 1313 professes to defend individual “choice” and autonomy“ but in reality these bills deceptively give physicians, the right in law, to prescribe lethal drugs to patients,” Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Executive Director Alex Schadenberg explained. 

“People are needing care and support, not lethal drugs.”

Linda Milliken wrote in the Portland Press Herald.

“Physician-assisted suicide destroys the doctor-patient relationship, as doctors now become agents of death, rather than comforters and healers,” 

Opponents of assisted suicide have pointed out multiple problems with the legislation, including defining “terminal disease” so broadly as to qualify someone with diabetes as eligible for a lethal dose.

Under the proposed law, patients with treatable conditions are considered “terminal” if they decide not to accept effective medication.

The Maine law is similar to Oregon’s assisted suicide law. An Oregon Health Authority representative admitted they interpret “terminal disease” as including treatable conditions:

“If the patient does not receive treatment or medication (for whatever reason) and is left with a terminal illness, then s/he would qualify for the Death With Dignity Act. I think you could also argue that even if the treatment/medication could actually cure the disease, and the patient cannot pay for the treatment, then the disease remains incurable.”

Nancy Elliot

Former three-term New Hampshire State Representative Nancy Elliot stated, 

“One of the biggest problems is people who qualify for Assisted Suicide are not necessarily dying. Think of a 21-year-old otherwise healthy insulin dependent diabetic. He qualifies if he rejects his insulin. This would be the same for many other people with serious conditions, who take prescription medications.”

Not Dead Yet’s Mike Reynolds cited: 

“Oregon’s doctors have written suicide prescriptions for individuals whose medical basis for eligibility for assisted suicide was listed as diabetes,” 

“People could qualify as ‘terminal’ who have epilepsy, ongoing infections and other illnesses that can be managed with medication.”

Milliken noted in a New York Times article which reported, 

“According to psychiatric experts, the vast majority of people requesting suicide are suffering from treatable depression, and no longer want to kill themselves once their underlying depression is resolved.” 

“Once the depression lifts and people can think more clearly, the therapists say, those who were determined to kill themselves are thankful to be alive, despite their pain or grim prognosis.” 

Elliot points out.

“With Assisted Suicide on the table these mistakes can be deadly. What about the five percent rate of incorrect medical diagnosis?” 

At a hearing in Massachusetts, John Norton testified that “as a young man he was diagnosed with ALS. He stated that had Assisted Suicide been legal at that time he would have used it. A few years in, the disease’s progression just stopped. Now in his late 70s he stated he has had a great life with children and a grandchild. With Assisted Suicide on the table he would have lost all of that.” 

Critics also note that Maine’s assisted suicide bill allows someone besides the patient to administer the lethal drugs. It defines “self-administer” as the patient voluntarily “ingesting” the poison –a phrase that other pro-euthanasia states interpret very loosely.

Schadenberg explains.

“In Washington State, ‘to ingest’ means ‘to absorb,’ thus enabling another person to administer the lethal drugs, so long as it is ‘absorbed,’” 

Schadenberg points out a potential lack of impartiality in the death decision. 

“The bill requires two witnesses (to the suicide request), but one may be a relative or an heir,” he says. “Clearly, a conflict of interest may exist.” 

“The written request must be witnessed by two individuals, only one of whom may be entitled to any portion of the patient’s estate upon death. The second witness could be a close friend of the potential heir,”  

“This places victims of elder abuse and domestic abuse in great danger since they are unlikely to share their fears with outsiders or to reveal that they are being pressured by family members to ‘choose’ assisted suicide.”

Conflict of interest in assisted suicide is greatest among health insurance companies. Instances have been publicized where an insurer refuses to pay for expensive but life-saving treatment, yet will pay for a suicide prescription.

Dr Brian Callister

When Nevada physician Brian Callister transferred patients to California and Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, each patient’s insurer actually asked if he’d suggested assisted suicide – although neither had a terminal illness.

And critics say LD 1313 has no provision for protective oversight against abuse. Once a death doctor writes the lethal prescription, there is no supervision in actually taking the life-ending drugs.

If the person administering the drugs was invested in the patient’s death, such as an heir, the patient could change his or her mind, or even struggle, yet once the poison is “absorbed,” no one would know.

Reynolds told the Bangor Daily News.

“Once the prescription is picked up from the pharmacy, there is absolutely no oversight in the law to protect the ill person from someone else who wants to hurry their death along, be it an insurance carrier, an heir or a caregiver,” 

Reynolds continued, 

“A friend or relative – even an heir – can ‘encourage’ an elder to make the request, sign the forms as a witness, pick up the prescription, and even administer the drug (with or without consent), because no objective witness is required at death.”

Opponents add that there is no provision for objective, third-party documentation. The same doctor who prescribes poison for his or her patient is the very one who is responsible to report the results of his death procedure.

Schadenberg assessed.

“Self-reporting systems are designed to cover-up abuse. By law, the same doctor is the judge, the jury and the executioner.”

Reynolds concluded.

“The only real protections in the law are for people other than the patient, foreclosing any realistic potential for investigation of foul play,” 

In fact, research proves assisted suicide can result in tremendous suffering by the patient, including “burning patients’ mouths and throats, causing some to scream in pain.” In other instances, “deaths stretched out hours in some patients — and up to 31 hours in one case.”

Reynolds told the Press Herald,

“This is not a ‘dignified’ death,”“It can take up to 104 hours for people to die.”

Newspaper editor John Balentine noted that the bill’s oft-repeated mantra. Balentine told The Forecaster.  

“Death With Dignity,” “purposefully avoids the word ‘suicide.’”

“Suicide is anything but dignified, because that person’s hopes and dreams are snuffed forever,” 

“The associated physical decay triggered by death is tragic and disgusting, far from dignified.” 

“Choosing…death…is also not dignified. Choosing life, rather than death, is dignified. Suffering through pain can be dignified. Giving up is not dignified.”

Balentine concluded.

“I’m always skeptical of those who use linguistic subterfuge to lobby their cause. Those employing the term ‘death with dignity’ are doing just that when lobbying for assisted suicide,”  “Here’s hoping Gov. Mills sees through the Legislature’s misguided – and undignified – political tactics.”

The Maine bill, called by supporters the “Maine Death With Dignity Act,” actually says that a lethal prescription is not suicide, and official death certificates must be falsified to list the patient’s medical condition as the cause of death:

“Actions taken in accordance with this Act do not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide under the law. State reports may not refer to acts committed under this Act as ‘suicide’ or ‘assisted suicide’…State reports must refer to acts committed under this Act as obtaining and self-administering life-ending medication. A patient’s death certificate…must list the underlying terminal disease as the cause of death.”

In other words, “the death certificate is falsified to reflect a natural death,” Elliot summarized.

“All the information is sealed and unavailable to the public.”

Critics also conclude that Maine’s proposed legislation is discriminatory. Assisted suicide not only stifles hope, encourages despair, and takes advantage of the vulnerable, it devalues certain groups of human beings, pushing them into an early death.

Diane Coleman

Not Dead Yet President Diane Coleman  explains. 

“Assisted suicide sets up a double standard, with suicide prevention for some and suicide assistance for others, depending on their health or disability,” 

“If such distinctions were based on race or ethnicity, we’d call it bigotry.” 

“The dangers of mistake, coercion and abuse it poses to old, ill and disabled people are rooted in a profound and still largely unacknowledged devaluation of our lives.”

Stephanie Woodward

Stephanie Woodward, Director of Advocacy at the Center for Disability Rights, charged.

People with disabilities and certain illnesses and the elderly “will receive a fast pass, because our lives are viewed as less worthy,” 

Reynolds agreed.

“Assisted-suicide laws are the most blatant forms of discrimination based on disability in our society today,” 

Bishop Robert Deeley of Portland came out vehemently against the bill on principle. He said. 

“To allow doctors to prescribe deadly prescriptions to hasten a person’s death would be a horrendous wound to the dignity of the human person,” 

The Maine bishop predicted consequences of the law would include 

“the elderly feeling undue pressure to view this as an option to prevent being a burden to others, a desensitization of the value of human life, as well as teaching young adults that people can be disposable.”

Elliot opined. 

“These laws are abusive in their very nature. To suggest to someone that they should kill themselves is abuse,” 

“It would be like saying, ‘You are worthless and should die.’”

Reynolds warned, 

“We should all be concerned about what kind of message a government sponsored, medically administered program of assisted suicide sends to anyone facing difficult times.”

“Kill the bill, not the patient.”

The American Nurses Association Maine, the Maine Medical Association, the Maine Hospice Council, the Maine Right to Life, the American Cancer Society Action Network, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland the Maine Osteopathic Association, all oppose the Maine legislation.

Suicide activists have tried several times to legalize assisted suicide in Maine. In 2015, a suicide measure was defeated in the state Senate by only one vote. A similar bill failed in the state House in 2017. An attempt was made in 2018 to put the issue to a popular vote.

Assisted suicide was first legalized in Oregon in 1997 after the U.S. Supreme Court essentially ruled the issue was up to the states. Since then, the state of Washington (2008), Vermont (2013 in an even less restrictive measure), California (2015, currently in effect but being fought in court), Colorado (2016), Washington D.C. (2017), Hawaii (2018), and most recently New Jersey (2019) have legalized doctor-prescribed death.  In 2009, Montana's state supreme court did not legalize assisted suicide but created a defense of consent, if a physician is prosecuted for assisted suicide. 

New Jersey Catholic Governor Phil Murphy signed his state’s killing bill in April. He said that while his faith opposed assisted suicide, 

“after careful consideration, internal reflection, and prayer.” 

“as a public official I cannot deny this alternative to those who may reach a different conclusion.”

We need you to tell Gov. Mills to veto the assisted suicide bill.

Governor Janet Mills
1 State House Station Augusta, ME  04333
Tel: 207-287-3531 or Fax: 207-287-1034
Email: governor@maine.gov

Similar bills are pending in several states with New York being the greatest concern.

Nancy Elliott: Letter to Governor Janet MIlls (Maine)

(Sadly, the Maine Governor signed the assisted suicide bill).

Dear Governor Mills,

Nancy Elliott, Chair EPC - USA

Please veto LD 1313, HPO948, which would enact Assisted Suicide.

I am a Former 3 term New Hampshire State Representative, and the Chair of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) USA.

The three groups that are the target for Assisted Suicide are the sick, the elderly and the disabled. While there are many other problems with this kind of law, I am going to focus in on these three.

It is said this is only for the sick and dying. One of the biggest problems is people who qualify for Assisted Suicide are not necessarily dying. Think of a 21-year-old otherwise healthy insulin dependent diabetic. He qualifies if he rejects his insulin. This would be the same for many other people with serious conditions, who take prescription medications. What about all the curable cancers? They qualify. What about the 5% of incorrect medical diagnosis? With Assisted Suicide on the table these mistakes can be deadly.

I was at a hearing for Assisted Suicide in Massachusetts a few years back when a gentleman named John Norton gave evidence, that as a young man he was diagnosed with ALS. He stated that had Assisted Suicide been legal at that time he would have used it. A few years in, the disease’s progression just stopped. Now in his late 70’s he stated he has had a great life with children and a grandchild. With Assisted Suicide on the table he would have lost all of that.

Steering is a big deal with all three of the groups that I mentioned. At that same Massachusetts hearing, a doctor stated that Assisted Suicide laws were something he was in favor of. He continued with his points and ended by saying that He felt it was the responsibility for a good doctor “to guide people to make the right choice”. I do not think he intended to say that but, is there any doubt that this pro suicide doctor would try to persuade his patients to follow his wishes concerning their Assisted Suicide.

These laws are abusive in their very nature. To suggest to someone that they should kill themselves is abuse. My husband was terminally ill, and I went to a lot of doctor appointments with him. If medical personnel were to suggest Assisted Suicide to him, he would have been devastated. While he never would have done that, but it would be like saying to him, “You are worthless and should die. That is abuse! The proponents say that would never happen, but that did happen to an Oregon to a woman named Kathryn Judson. She had gone to a doctor’s appointment with her seriously ill husband and exhaustedly sunk into a chair where she overheard the doctor pitching Assisted Suicide to her husband with the clincher, “Think of your wife.” They left and never came back. The husband went on to live another five years

Next seniors are at risk and very easily fall victim to coercion as the process is very open to that. In most states, heirs can be there for the request and even speak. Anyone can pick up the lethal dose. Once in the house all oversight is gone, there is no witness required at the death. Even if they struggled who would know. If that is not enough, the death certificate is falsified to reflect a natural death. All the information is sealed and unavailable to the public. Even if someone suspected foul play, the death certificate says no crime here. Taking advantage of seniors is epidemic in the US. Look at the case of Thomas Middleton. He made Tami Sawyer his trustee and moved into her home. Within a month he was dead by Oregon’s Assisted Suicide law. Two day after his death Ms. Sawyer listed his house and sold it and deposited the money into three companies she owned with her husband. We will never know how much coercion or foul play took place in this case.

Finally, those with a disability are at risk. Most people that “qualify” for Assisted Suicide at that point in their life have a disability. Many with long term disabilities have been labeled terminal all their lives. Without meds, treatments, and assistance they would not survive. This is about disability. If you have a disability you are encouraged to give up, commit suicide. If, on the other hand, you are young and healthy, you are given suicide counselling. This is discrimination against people with disabilities. Why should they trust that they will not be coerced into Assisted Suicide, when they are already discouraged to seek treatments and are not treated fairly? When you think about it this is a law that is written just for them. It is a “special” carve out, for the sick, elderly and disabled.

In closing, I just want to add that Assisted Suicide has been rejected in over 100 legislative, ballot initiative and judicial attempts in the USA, including my state New Hampshire where it was a bipartisan vote. The more it is studied the more uncomfortable people become with it.

Nancy Elliott
Chair – Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA

An Open Letter to Maine Governor Mills: Veto Assisted Suicide Law LD 1313

(Sadly, the Maine Governor signed the assisted suicide bill). 

This letter was published by Not Dead Yet on June 6, 2019.

Dear Governor Mills:

Diane Coleman, Not Dead Yet

The disability community appeals to you to veto LD 1313, which would legalize a public policy of assisted suicide.

Many people are unaware of the fact that every major national disability organization that has taken a position on assisted suicide laws opposes them. These include over a dozen prominent groups, many of which have undersigned this urgent appeal:

ADAPT
American Association of People with Disabilities
Assn of Programs for Rural Independent Living
Autistic Self Advocacy Network
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
National Council on Disability
National Council on Independent Living
National Organization of Nurses with Disabilities
National Spinal Cord Injury Association
Not Dead Yet
TASH
The Arc of the United States
United Spinal Association

Our reasons for opposing assisted suicide laws are many. Most of them are illustrated by these documented examples of significant problems which occurred in states that have courted the danger of a law based on Oregon’s “death with dignity” Act. These examples are available at:

When assisted suicide is legal, it’s the cheapest treatment available—an attractive option in our profit-driven healthcare system. Bitter experiences has shown that insurers are denying expensive life-sustaining treatment but offering lethal drugs instead.

Terminal diagnoses and prognoses are too often wrong, leading people to lose good years of their lives. If one doctor says “no,” people can “doctor shop” for a “yes,” regardless of their actual legal eligibility. The highly touted “safeguards” turn out to be truly hollow, with no real enforcement or investigation authority. Assisted suicide is a prescription for abuse: an heir or abusive caregiver can steer someone towards assisted suicide, witness the request, pick up the lethal dose, and in the end, even administer the drug—no disinterested witness is required at the death, so who would know?

Evidence appears to show that assisted suicide laws also lead to suicide contagion, driving up the general suicide rate. For example, a CDC report reveals that from 1999-2010, suicide among those aged 35-64 increased 49% in Oregon, where assisted suicide has been legal the longest, as compared to a 28% increase nationally.

Finally, although assisted suicide proponents will say that it’s not about disability, the top 5 reported reasons for assisted suicide requests in Oregon throughout the years since legalization are all disability issues: “loss of autonomy” (90.6%), “less able to engage in activities” (89.1%), “loss of dignity” (74.4%), “losing control of bodily functions” (44.3%), and “burden on others” (44.8%). (The same reports show that every year except the first, some of those who died by lethal prescription were not terminal within six months.)

These are issues that many people face, not only those of us commonly considered disabled, but also seniors, people with chronic conditions, and people with advanced illnesses, including terminal illnesses. These reasons demonstrate that virtually all who die by lethal prescriptions in Oregon are disabled, in that they need assistance from another person for daily activities.

As people who have fought for the civil rights and equal protection of all people with disabilities, we in the undersigned organizations understand that our society is permeated with negative stereotypes about disability. Award winning movies deliver the message that it’s “better to be dead than disabled.” We understand the shame people are taught to feel if they become disabled, the pressure to hide that we need help, the guilt for “inconveniencing” others.

There are ways to address the reasons people have for requesting assisted suicide, but it starts with a societal commitment to treat all suicides as a tragedy, to respond to anyone’s expression of suicidal feelings with an equal level of support, affirmation of the value of their life and effort to address their concerns. A two-tiered system where most people get suicide prevention but certain people get suicide assistance is a deadly form of discrimination that should not be accepted. Assisted suicide laws exacerbate the disability stigma that prevails in our culture and undermine people’s genuine autonomy by establishing a medically administered program of suicide approval and assistance in a health care environment already riddled with pressures to cut costs of care.

Assisted suicide is bad medicine for Maine. We hope that this information is helpful in your consideration of this life and death public policy issue, and would welcome the opportunity to communicate about this further.

Sincerely,

Diane Coleman, JD, MBA
President/CEO
Not Dead Yet
497 State Street
Rochester, NY 14608
708-420-0539 C
www.notdeadyet.org

ON BEHALF OF:

ADAPT
American Association of People with Disabilities
Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund
National Council on Independent Living
Not Dead Yet
TASH: Equity, Opportunity, and Inclusion for People with Disabilities Since 1975
United Spinal Association

New Belgian guidelines for psychiatric euthanasia.

Dr Mark Komrad

Dr Mark S. Komrad M.D., DFAPA, DACP Faculty of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins and University of Maryland sent a summary of The Belgium National Council of Physicians new “guidelines” for the voluntary euthanasia of psychiatric patients. 
(Link to the guidelines). Mark wrote:

The guidelines include some positive changes even though the eligibility of certain psychiatric patients with “unbearable” and “untreatable” mental illness remains, there have been some changes in the recommend procedures that slightly reign in the practice. I provided a Google Translation. 

The highlights of these changes are:

• Now there must be THREE doctors involved: the one who will administer the euthanasia, and two who are not administering the euthanasia, but are involved in determining a patient's eligibility. Both consultants MUST be psychiatrists. That is new. [Again, this pertains only to psych patients]. Previously, a psychiatrist as a consultant was recommended but not required. So, it had previously been possible for psychiatric patients seeking euthanasia to not have a second opinion from a single psychiatrist prior to being euthanized.

• The three doctors now MUST MEET IN PERSON to confer about the case. Previously, such a conference was not required. However, “they are not required to agree on everything.” In fact, it is recommended (not required) that other professionals involved in the case, such as nurses, therapists, and psychologists, attend this potentially “interdisciplinary" meeting.

• Heretofore, the established right of patients to refuse certain treatments was also extended to psychiatric patients. So, the concept of an “untreatable” condition was confined to the list of treatments that a patient would accept. Now, to be eligible for psychiatric euthanasia, the patient must have tried “all evidence-based treatments” for that condition. Refusal of one of those treatment options would disqualify a patient for euthanasia. This is a significant step.

• The established “one month” waiting period between requesting and receiving euthanasia, is now deemed insufficient for psychiatric patients. These new guidelines say that one-month is insufficent. Unfortunately, they do not stipulate how long is appropriate for psychiatric patients. Psychiatric patients should have “a treatment process spread over a long-term period.” Unfortunately, no specific time frames are specified. So, this feature may have little value without that clarity.

• Though patients have a right to exclude family members for the euthanasia evaluation and decision process, physicians are urged to include family members unless there is no substantial reason to include them. This only re-iterates suggestions for common sense practice that is largely the status quo anyway. There are no mandates to include family either for corroborative history, or co-consent. But psychiatrists are urged to encourage their patients to include their family. I do not see this as a substantive change.

• Though not a change, there is more emphatic reiteration that a conscientiously objecting physician MUST REFER to an alternative doctor who might be willing to approve euthanasia (no guarantees). In this regard, the Belgian law is similar to the recently litigated and court-supported rules for conscientious objection to euthanasia in Ontario.

A few notes. This is not a new law, but a set of “guidelines” issued by the national organization that regulates physicians, not a legislature. It’s like a “practice guideline” in the U.S. The legal consequences of failing to following these guidelines with its “musts” and its “shoulds,” is not clear. The new disqualification for euthanasia if a patient refuses an “evidenced based” treatment, pertains strictly to psychiatric patients seeking euthanasia for their psychiatric conditions, not those with other kinds of illnesses. In that sense, it is a step away from parity, and interestingly, applies only to those with psychiatric conditions, not other conditions. So, for example, a patient with chronic renal failure, may still refuse dialysis. But, a psychiatric patient who refuses, say ECT for treatment resistant depression, would not be eligible for euthanasia.

Though somewhat tighter, these regulations continue to sustain the eligibility of some psychiatric patients to have euthanasia, helping them to commit suicide, sometimes administered by the same psychiatrists who previously had been trying to prevent their suicides.

Euthanasia for victims of rape.

This article was published by the Australian Care Alliance on June 5, 2019

It was widely reported in the english media that a 17 year old girl was euthanased on Sunday 2 June 2019 at her home in Arnhem, the Netherlands, on the grounds of her suffering as a victim of rape. 

However, Dutch reports indicate she did not die from euthanasia but from starvation/dehydration after refusing to eat with the intention of ending her life.

In fact, euthanasia for rape victims is not unknown in neigbouring Belgium.

In late 2012 a 44 year old woman known as Ann G was euthanased by her psychiatrist on the grounds of unbearable psychological suffering. She had been treated for anorexia since her teenage years by psychiatrist Walter Vandereycken. In 2008 she publicly accused Vandereycken of sexual abusing her under the guise of therapy. In October 2012 he admitted to years of sexual abuse of several of his patients. Following this admission Ann G spoke of some temporary relief from “the cancer in her head” but subsequently persisted in her request for euthanasia. Ann G will not be available to testify against her abuser if charges are laid.

Between 2014 and 2017 there were 25 cases of people under 40 being killed by euthanasia on the grounds of mental illness.

In relation to these troubled young people the Belgian Euthanasia Control and Evaluation Commission observes 

“In the group of patients under 40, it is mainly personality and behavioral disorders. All these patients have been treated for many years, both outpatient and residential. There has always been talk of intractable suffering. For this type of disorder, serious psychological trauma at a very young age have been mentioned several times, such as domestic violence, psychological neglect or sexual abuse."

So Belgium is treating the victims of child abuse by domestic violence, neglect and sexual abuse by killing them.

Child euthanasia is not new in the Netherlands either. A total of fifteen children have been given euthanasia, including one 12 year old child in 2005, a 16 year old in 2015, five 17 year old children between 2002 and 2015 and two children (aged 16 or 17 years) in 2016, three children in 2017 (one aged 16 or 17 years, other two cases no case report), and three children in 2018 (two aged 16 or 17 years; one case report not available). Up until now all cases with detailed case reports (11 out of 15) involved end stage cancer. It is not known what the condition was in the remaining four cases.

In the case of children aged 16 or 17 years old the child can be put to death without the agreement of the parents.

Supporters of euthanasia who think it can be effectively limited to a handful of hard cases of people imminently dying with unrelievable pain (for whom there is always another response anyway) need to rethink the risk of unleashing the idea of lethal injection or lethal poisons as the answer to life's problems.

Death of 17 year-old rape victim in the Netherlands was not euthanasia

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Noa Pothoven

It is shocking to read the news about the euthanasia death of Noa Pothoven (17) who was sexually assaulted at age 11 and raped by two men when she was 14. We now learn that some of the english language media did not report her case properly.

An article in Deutche Welle explains that Noa died by refusing food and fluid.

It is a normal response for a woman, who has been raped and violated, to feel that her suffering is unbearable but killing her by lethal drugs or allowing her to die in this manner is abandonment.

The article by Miranda Aldersley that was published in the Daily Mail described the sad case:

The Dutch teenager from Arnhem felt that life had become unbearable and she could no longer carry on after she was attacked and sexually assaulted on three separate occasions, beginning when she was just 11 years old.

The article then quotes from the story in the De Gelderlander newspaper:

According to the Dutch newspaper De Gelderlander, Noa's parents had no idea she was unwell until her mother discovered a plastic envelope in her room filled with farewell letters to her parents, friends and acquaintances.

'I was in shock,' Lisette told De Gelderlander. 'We didn't get it. Noa is sweet, beautiful, smart, social and always cheerful. How is it possible that she wants to die?

'We have never received a real answer. We just heard that her life was no longer meaningful. For only a year and a half have we known what secret she has carried with her over the years.'

That secret, as outlined in her book, was that Noa was assaulted at a schoolfriend's party when she was 11 years old, and one year later at another teenager's party.

At the age of 14, she was raped by two men in the Arnhem neighbourhood of Elderveld - but stayed quiet 'out of fear and shame'. 'I relive the fear, that pain every day,' she said last year. 'Always scared, always on my guard. And to this day my body still feels dirty. My house has been broken into, my body, that can never be undone.'

Noa was living with incredible pain and suffering. 

I am also concerned that reporting that Noa died by a "medically assisted death" (MAiD) may cause others, who have been sexually assaulted, raped and violated to demand death by lethal drugs.

The sad reality of euthanasia is that killing leads to more killing.