Free Online Conference celebrating 20 years of protecting people from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg

Join EPC on Saturday July 20 to celebrate the 20^th anniversary for Alex Schadenberg as the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

EPC is celebrating the occasion with a free live online conference from (1 pm to 3:00 pm eastern time) featuring key presenters.

You need to go to the EPC youtube page and press subscribe (Link).

The conference will include: 

• Amy Hasbrouck, (EPC - President), 
• Taylor Hyatt (Toujours Vivant – Not Dead Yet researcher),
• Maxime Huot Couture - Vivre dans la Dignite Quebec)
• Kristina Hodgetts - Compassionate Community Care.
• Catherine Glenn Foster (AUL - President), 
• and Alex Schadenberg.

EPC is focusing on the International campaign to prevent euthanasia and assisted suicide and Canada's five year review of its euthanasia legislation that is scheduled for June 2020. 

Palliative care experts are opposed to euthanasia.

This article was published by HOPE Australia on July 9, 2019

One of Western Australia's (WA) most senior palliative care nurses and a New Zealand based palliative medicine specialist have both come out in opposition to the looming euthanasia laws in their respective jurisdictions.

After more than 30 years working in the public and private palliative care sector, nurse Lou Angus has sent a letter to the Western Australian government signed by 39 of her colleagues.

Accusing the government of catering for a small minority, Angus asks, “What are our politicians doing for the 96 to 99 percent of dying people who want better care whilst they are dying?”.

A sage of the system, Angus points out that if palliative care for terminal patients were to begin 12 months out from death, it would prevent people “yo-yoing” in and out of hospital, saving the health system millions of dollars. She writes:

Assisted suicide is not dignified. Dignity begins with a belief that the dying person deserves the best care we can offer. It requires a belief that dying people are not a burden, no matter how complex they are.

Angus attacks the WA government’s push for death on demand, stating emphatically, “Better health care is the answer,” and emphasising the need for more end-of-life health care.

All the way across the ditch, palliative medicine specialist Dr Amanda Landers echoes Angus’ sentiments, writing:

The answer to bad deaths is not euthanasia. The answer is a better understanding of basic medical ethics, of palliative medicine, of what happens to the body when it is dying, and how to care for someone at the end of life.

A specialist of over a decade, Landers is exasperated by the many misconceptions in the community regarding the matter:

I get the feeling the general public think death is a black-and-white issue. I cannot think of a subject that has more grey… 

Palliative care is multi-disciplinary to match the many dimensions of a person and their family/whanau. I have been dismayed at the attacks on our area of medicine in the media and on the health professionals who dedicate their lives to looking after these vulnerable New Zealanders. 

…I have realised there are many misconceptions that have taken root in our community which need weeding out.

Dr Landers directly addresses the most common arguments for death on demand, explaining how each of them can be effectively addressed by proper palliative care.

Palliative care professionals are passionate about the difference that their profession can make in the lives of terminally ill patients. They are also overwhelmingly opposed to the legalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide. When Victoria and New South Wales were each considering legalising these practices, 101 Australian palliative care specialists signed an open letter, asking for the rejection of the legislation and petitioning for adequate resources to help them to care for those at the end-of life:

“It would be unethical for any state jurisdiction in Australia to move to legalise for assisted suicide or euthanasia whilst many ill, aged and disabled Australians cannot yet access the support they need. Such a move would not enhance choice, but instead reduce choice around the care and support for those in real need.”

In the words of Professor Roderick MacLeod, “It is telling that those in the medical profession who are most opposed to assisted dying are those who deal with people who are dying on a daily basis, the palliative medicine physicians.”

10 reasons why Vincent Lambert should live

Vincent Lambert is being dehydrated to death.

Christophe Foltzenlogel has been a legal expert with the European Center for Law and Justice.

The determination of Vincent Lambert’s parents to save their son’s life, despite his heavily disabled condition, arouses admiration but also a lot of misunderstanding and contempt.

Vincent Lambert ordered to die by French high court. 

Sign the petition: Protect Vincent Lambert's life. 

At a time when Vincent is literally dying of hunger and thirst, these questions and objections, which are either general or particular to Vincent Lambert's case, deserve answer.

1. “His mother should just take her son home and care for him herself!”

Vincent Lambert with his mother.

As a matter of fact, his parents wish to do so and several medical authorities have recognized that Vincent could be perfectly cared for in his parents’ home. They have made several requests to the French courts and this has been expressly and systematically refused. This is the first fundamental problem that is specific to this case: Vincent Lambert is not in a care unit adapted to his situation. He should not be in a palliative care service but in a house or clinic that is adapted and specialized for his disability. Some hospitals and private clinics specialized in this type of disability have offered to welcome Vincent Lambert into their facilities. This was also systematically refused.

In a collective opinion page on April 18, 70 “doctors and professionals specialized in the care of persons with cerebral palsy in a vegetative or pauci-relational state” said about Vincent Lambert that “it is obvious that he is not at the end of life”. The average length of stay in a palliative care unit in France is 16 days. Vincent has been living in a palliative care unit for 10 years. This does shows that he is not at the end of his life.

2. “Nobody would want to live like this, it's not a life!”

Indeed, nobody would want to live in such a situation. It is however a sophism to conclude that one should therefore euthanize a person living in such a situation.

Indeed, it is not because one suffers from one or several illnesses that one would necessarily want to die. Nobody wants to lose an arm in a work accident and become unemployed. However, if such a thing happens, a person does not necessarily lose the will to live. The response of an empathic society should not be to keep a person in his pain by inviting him to put an end to his life so as not to suffer anymore, but to treat him, and to help him understand that life is worth living.

In addition, judging the value of a person’s life is dangerous. What criteria allow to say that a life is worth living? Are they universal and accepted by everyone?

3. “He said that he did not want to be kept in such a state, respect his will!”

This is a point heavily discussed in this case. In fact, he did not write advance directives, although he was a nurse and well-informed of such a possibility.

Moreover, his wife alone claims to report what he would have said, as well as a brother who claims to report his “last wishes”. All his other brothers, sisters, and even his half-nephew stated that Vincent had never said anything to them about it. They all, however, deduced this alleged desire not to be kept alive by virtue of his personality. Is this deduction reliable?

The reality is that most of us have already told our loved ones that we would not want to live in a disabled or declined state. This does not mean, however, that we would want to be euthanized in this case. Even when expressing such a desire clearly while one is in good health, the unanimous experience of caregivers is that once the accident has occurred, the will evolves because the will to live is often the strongest.

Vincent Lambert had his car accident in 2008. But it was only in 2013, after a long conversation with Dr Kariger, favourable to “a path of end of life”, that Rachel Lambert claimed such was the will expressed by her husband. She had not previously made any public comments about that.

On this basis, Dr Kariger initiated the first euthanasia attempt that year on Vincent Lambert. As the doctor continued to hydrate him a minima (250-300mL / day), Vincent Lambert survived hunger and thirst for 31 days. This resilience, which has been maintained until now, is a serious indication of a personal will to live. This is what all the specialist caregivers of these patients say, and according to their experience, patients like Vincent Lambert who no longer want to live or who “drop out psychologically” die in a few days, or even a few hours, without warning signs.

4. “He is no longer conscious of himself; he is a vegetable!”

The question is debated but the various diagnoses established throughout the judicial process indicate that Vincent Lambert is in a chronic state of altered consciousness that includes states ranging from “vegetative” to “minimally conscious state”. He breathes alone, sleeps and wakes up. He is fed by a gastrostomy (feeding tube). His movements and facial expressions are difficult to interpret medically, but there is no doubt that there is a possible interaction with people, however small it may be. For example, he turns his eyes and head towards his mother when she calls him. Several videos taken by his mother attest to his reactions to solicitations and at least a clear awakening of Vincent Lambert, demonstrating that he is not a “vegetable”.

If we consider Vincent Lambert to be in a vegetative state such that he cannot express anything nor even possess awareness of his surroundings – which is contested by his parents, although to this day they cannot claim to know his true will or claim with certainty that would prefer to die. This makes the euthanasia of Vincent Lambert even more shocking. The traditional wisdom is that “when in doubt, the best thing is not do anything”. Here, despite being in doubt, they have already begun to kill him. And if Vincent Lambert were really nothing but a vegetable who does not feel anything and is no longer aware of his environment, why sedate him so that he does not “suffer anymore”?

5. “No to Endless Medical Treatment!”

We entirely agree. However, in the case of Vincent Lambert, he does not need nor is receiving medical treatment. He does not take any medications, undergo regular surgeries, or rely on a respirator to breathe. He is not at the natural end of his life. On 21 November 2018, the medical experts appointed by the Courts affirmed that the “fundamental and primary needs [of Vincent Lambert] do not reveal endless medical treatments or any unreasonable obstinacy toward that end”, and that Vincent Lambert’s medical situation “call[ed] for no emergency measures.”

Admittedly, his feeding and nutrition is accomplished by a tube. This method of administration constitutes a form of care. But what is administered is not medication, nor treatment, nor artificial: it is food, no different than that needed by all other human beings. In addition, in Vincent Lambert’s specific case, it is necessary to note that he is able to swallow small quantities of food. However, his doctors have never sought to stimulate this ability in order to encourage the recovery of his faculties.

Thus, to deprive Vincent Lambert of his nutrition is not to “let him go” or to “let him die”, but to purposefully cause his death. It is erroneous and alarming to see in the assisted nutrition of a disabled person the existence of “unreasonable obstinacy.” There are thousands of people in France today who cannot feed themselves, some of whom are merely ill or extremely aged. Would it be right to let them die as well simply by refusing to feed them?

6. “I am against euthanasia, but I’m not sure that’s actually happening here…”

Yes, it is certainly euthanasia that is occurring here: a decision has been made by a third party, Dr Sanchez, to deliberately deprive a person of food and water in order to bring about his death. Refusing to feed and hydrate a disabled person in order to provoke his death because of the serious nature of his disability constitutes, for a doctor, a denial of the Hippocratic Oath.

If we do not stand firm on general moral principles, we put ourselves directly onto a slippery downhill slope. Admittedly, the medical situation of Vincent Lambert is terrible and difficult, but if he can be euthanized by the will of his guardian and his doctor, why shouldn’t people who have been in a coma for 20 years also be permitted a “worthy” end? And why even wait 20 years? If receiving nutrition by a device is a treatment, why not stop the treatment of other people who cannot feed themselves?

The direction of this slope is that of Belgium, where euthanasia is legally accessible to individuals suffering from depression and other mental disorders, including minors.

7. “His mother is a traditionalist Catholic who makes her son suffer as a consequence of her beliefs—this is revolting!”

When people say it is better to euthanize because “no one would want to live in such a condition,” these people are essentially imposing their convictions on Vincent. As soon as Vincent Lambert could no longer express his own will, any actions taken toward him necessarily became imposed, whether in favour of life or of death. Why would an atheist who does not believe in life after death have any greater right to impose his beliefs on Vincent? It is completely absurd that some people mock the beliefs of Vincent Lambert’s parents in assessing that, once dead, he will not have to suffer anymore. What do they really know about his suffering, anyway?

8. “What enormous costs to the Social Security System!”

Yes, but to base a judgment of life or death on financial considerations is dangerous—for everyone. What about all the people who are stuck in a coma? Or those suffering from serious forms of cancer, whether in the advanced or beginning stages? Should we set an age past which the right to live becomes too expensive for society to support, thereby justifying the euthanasia of all individuals who live past that age? This goes directly against the fundamental principle of our (French) Social Security System: to make contributions according to our level of ability and later receive care in accordance with our needs.

In the specific case of Vincent Lambert, given that he had his car accident while driving from his home to his place of employment, his care is primarily financed by his employer’s insurance company, and not actually “by our taxes”. In addition, the daily fees charged by a specialized facility to which he would be better adapted are two to three times less than that of hospice care. The transfer requested by his parents for the last several years would reduce these costs just as much.

9. “The United Nations has nothing to do with this case. The requirements of its Committees carry no weight in France!”

The United Nations is an international organisation that the Member States have themselves created and accepted by ratifying a constitutional treaty. Indeed, according to our Constitution and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Council, international treaties ratified by France are integrated into our legal system and have binding force superior to domestic laws.

In this case, the moment France signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol, the government committed itself, according to our own national laws, to recognising that “handicapped persons have the right to enjoy the best possible conditions of health without discrimination based on their disability” and to “prevent all discriminatory refusals to provide medical care or services or nutrition and hydration based on a person’s disability”.

When Vincent Lambert’s parents failed to obtain recognition of their disabled son’s right to life and to care from the French government, it was legitimate for them to bring their case before the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is charged with ensuring the proper application of said Convention by France.

France has an obligation to respect the request of this Committee to not provoke the death of Vincent Lambert because it has recognised the power of this Committee to prescribe “necessary interim measures to avoid irreversible harm to victims of a presumed violation.” In addition, respect for these measures is a condition of the effectiveness of the right to recourse and appeal in this instance.

10. “All these years of procedures constitute a massive waste of judicial and medical resources!”

No one goes through years of judicial proceedings because they want to or find it pleasing, and this was not what Vincent Lambert’s parents imagined nor wanted either.

At the root of their will to protect the life of their son is obviously parental love, but there is also the conviction to fight injustice and to work for the protection of certain principles and the lives of other people who are in situations similar to that of Vincent Lambert.

It is the injustice and scandal of this case – that of seeing their disabled son suffer from thirst and starvation to the point of death by the decision of a doctor and the judicial system – that morally justify pursuing all possible forms of recourse available under French and International law.

The obstinacy in this case is neither therapeutic nor judicial, it is that of ensuring Vincent Lambert’s death.

Assisted Suicide California Style.

This article was published on July 8, 2019 by the disability rights group, Not Dead Yet.

By Lisa Blumberg

John L’Heureux was a prolific writer and former Stanford professor who died April 22nd in California. His wife, Joan L’Heureux, initially told the New York Times that the cause was complications of Parkinson’s disease (1). Within a few days, though, the New Yorker published an essay by L’Heureux on why he would die by assisted suicide (2).

The piece, which was somewhat unimaginatively entitled “On Death and Dignity”, may have omitted salient facts. It is conceivable that he may have mischaracterized his wife’s stance. I have even considered the possibility that it was a hoax – one of L’Heureux’s more bizarre bits of fiction – but that seems unlikely since he did die when he said he planned to. The bottom line is that if L’Heureux’s death went down as he recounted, it is almost a textbook study on how these laws in and of themselves encourage suicide.

L’Heureux seems to have been a suggestible guy. He started college intent on becoming an actor but then his roommate out of nowhere said, “Why don’t you become a priest. You’re smart enough.” (3) L’Heureux became a Jesuit priest.

Some years later, he left the priesthood – not because he had problems with doctrine or with the Jesuits – but because he felt it was too hard to be the type of priest he wanted to be.
Shortly thereafter, he married Joan, a former nun (4).

When L’Heureux acquired Parkinson’s disease (PD) as an older man, he was understandably concerned because his father had PD and ended up with cognitive decline and in a nursing home, fates that L’Heureux deemed inevitable. He referred to himself and his father as “parkies”. Yet, his literary career flourished. He continued to write novels and his short fiction appeared regularly in the New Yorker which he took as reassurance that he “was still compos mentis.” He obtained a contract to publish his new and selected stories as a collection subtitled “And Maketh Many Wild Leaps.” L’Heureux said that “my heart indeed made many wild leaps.” (5)

This all sounds like things were pretty good. Yet L’Heureux wrote that after another of his works was published, “I first looked into California’s death-with-dignity law. I found it hard to believe that the state was sanctioning a kind of suicide. Suicide? No, death with dignity.” (6) His focus on the law (which arguably did not even apply to him), the state and buzz words is telling. At another point in his essay, he said he was invoking the law as “justification” for his suicide. My guess is that the law whispered to him suggestively. Instead of “why don’t you become a priest”, it was “why don’t you kill yourself?”

L’Heureux discussed things with Joan and “we came to agree that, in this case, death sooner was better than death delayed.” (7) He did not say that Joan accepted or became resigned to his decision. Instead, they both agreed, he should die. Perhaps you could call it a unilateral suicide pact.

Next came a talk between L’Heureux and his doctor. “I reviewed for him my progress—I liked the irony of the term—from my half-assed stumbling walk to reliance on a cane, and then that sobering moment when I was forced to use a walker. That was where I was now. Next would come the wheelchair…” (8) The doctor told him that he still had enough brain matter to be of sound mind. L’Heureux took this as a compliment, although the practical effect of what the doctor said was that the doctor was not going to request a mental health evaluation.

“Thus my suicide began,” L’Heureux wrote dramatically. “Three home visits by two doctors—my primary physician and my neurologist—officially established my decision to die with dignity… I signed a formal document attesting to my decision, and it was co-signed and witnessed, according to the law.” (9) L’Heureux received his lethal prescription.

What’s wrong with this picture?

The main criteria of California’s assisted suicide law is that a person have a terminal illness which will, within reasonable medical judgment, result in death within six months. Yet, there is no mention in L’Heureux’s essay of his being at all close to death. He was just seemingly a man with a slowly progressive condition who like many people his age – he was 82 – used a walker and had some anxiety about the future. 
However, there is no clear mechanism in the law for enforcing the requirement that doctors determine that a person be in the end stage of an illness. It is sort of the honor system.

There is also the requirement that a person’s request must not arise from the undue influence of another. However, the doctor must only ascertain if the person “is feeling” unduly influenced. A person who is being influenced may not be aware of it. That is the nature of influence.

It is chilling to read of L’Heureux’s belief – a belief that apparently went unchallenged – that his suicide was “an agreed – upon act of love.” (10)

Many studies have established that people with PD have a higher suicidal ideation rate than the general population. In one study, suicidal ideation was present in 31% of participants with PD, compared with 16% of patients with psoriasis, and 2% of healthy controls. The authors recommended that “clinical assessment of PD patients should include a psychiatric evaluation investigating suicidal ideation and perceived disability”. (11) As with other groups, suicide among people with PD is a preventable tragedy.
Once L’Heureux had his lethal prescription, he and Joan discussed the date for what he called the Event. “Given the strain that all of this put on us…we chose sooner, rather than later. April 22nd, three weeks away.”

John L’Heureux died on that date. There may not have been anyone around with enough sway with him to suggest otherwise.

Footnotes

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/obituaries/john-lheureux-dead.html
2. https://www.newyorker.com/books/this-week-in-fiction/john-lheureux-05-06-19
3. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/obituaries/2019/05/01/and-thus-suicide-began-prolific-author-john-heureux-wrote-his-final-essay-death-and-dignity/m4yqp88Bfb7RqSc1bFX0cM/story.html
4. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/obituaries/john-lheureux-dead.html
5. https://www.newyorker.com/books/this-week-in-fiction/john-lheureux-05-06-19
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. https://www.psychiatryadvisor.com/home/topics/neurocognitive-disorders/parkinsons-disease/correlates-of-increased-suicidal-ideation-in-parkinson-disease/
12. New Yorker essay

‘Tsunami’ of elderly and euthanasia are not a good mix, say Queensland doctors

This article was published by Bioedge on July 6, 2019

By Michael Cook

With a “tsunami” of elderly patients with severe health problems approaching, Australians should not be legalising euthanasia, a senior doctor has told the Queensland Parliament. It could increase the pressure on vulnerable older people who feel they are a "burden" on others to do away with themselves, said Dr Chrys Pulle, on behalf of the Australian New Zealand Society of Geriatric Medicine Queensland.

“There [are] risks of voluntary and involuntary euthanasia on patients with cognitive impairment, dementia, delirium or reduced capacity; adverse effects on the funding for palliative care services and research; changing the concept of doctors being treaters and life savers and healers." 

"We need education for the wider public, as well as older people, about what expectations we're likely to face once we've been diagnosed with a chronic neurodegenerative disease, or chronic pain condition," he said. "No one wants to be that patient in the dementia ward that's agitated. It's not what their loved one wants. And oftentimes that reflects the wish to end somebody's life."

The head of the Australian Medical Association Queensland ethic committee, Dr Chris Moy said voluntary euthanasia could lead to unintended consequences.

"You're opening up the issue of value of life, that's not just from other people imposing their values of life onto individuals, which is a problem, but the second part is individuals starting to value their lives in a different way as well. It may not just be elderly, there are disabled, there are children, you're opening it up."

A committee of the Queensland Parliament is conducting a year-long inquiry into voluntary assisted dying, palliative care and aged care issues.

German court acquits doctors who did not intervene in suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The status of the assisted suicide law in Germany has become more complicated as the German High Court upheld the acquitals of two physicians who did not intervene as patients committed suicide.

According to The Local DE:

Prosecutors had asked the federal court of justice to clear the two defendants, both doctors who did not intervene when their patients deliberately took fatal doses of medication.

Their actions "did not constitute a homicide", presiding judge Norbert Mutzbauer in Leipzig said.

"If the patient kills themselves, even with help from someone else, that person's actions are not punishable under the law."

On July 2, 2018; Germany's health minister decided to stop providing lethal euthanasia drugs.

Both doctors had been charged with homicide, by not intervening in the suicide. Clearly the court is correct to say that the act did not constitute homicide. 

In Germany doctors are forbidden to assist a suicide but they are not required to intervene as someone causes their own death.

Liver transplants after euthanasia

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A  study published July 2 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) outlines the advantages of organ donation after euthanasia.
The study examined 409 Liver Transplants in Belgium whereby 320 livers (78%) were obtained after brain death, 78 livers (19%) after circulatory death and 11 livers (2.7%) (after euthanasia). The results were:

Liver transplantation after donor brain death, circulatory death, or euthanasia resulted in 3-year graft survival of 80.2% (95% CI, 75.4%-84.2%), 82% (95% CI, 71.6%-89%), and 90.9% (95% CI, 50.8%-98.7%) (P = .67) and 3-year patient survival of 86.1% (95% CI, 81.9%-89.5%), 84.6% (95% CI, 74.5%-91%), and 90.9% (95% CI, 50.8%-98.7%) (P = .84), respectively.

According to this study the 3 year graft survival rate was 80.2% (brain death), 82% (circulatory death) and 90.9% (euthanasia). The three year patient survival rate was 86.1% (brain death), 84.6% (circulatory death ) and 90.9% (euthanasia).

The study then concludes:

These data support the notion that within a very strict ethicolegal and logistic framework, donation after euthanasia may represent a valuable source of donor organs. The small sample size, limited follow-up, and monocentric nature of the study preclude definitive conclusions but provide a rationale for larger, longer-term studies on efficacy and safety of donation after euthanasia.

The study admits that there were only a few transplants after euthanasia, leading to inconclusive data nonetheless I predict that there will be more studies like this one. Organ donation after euthanasia turns euthanasia into a social "good" and creates new pressure for people to die by euthanasia. 

Euthanasia by organ donation is also being promoted since heart transplants are not possible when organ donation follows euthanasia, whereas heart transplants are possible when euthanasia is done by organ donation.

Euthanasia by organ donation refers to the act of causing death by retrieving the organs rather than retrieving the organs after death.

Bill Peace: A Professor Who Professed Disability Activism

Published by Not Dead Yet on July 2, 2019

By Diane Coleman

By now, many who read this message will know that Bill Peace died not long after midnight this morning. In the hours since, the outpouring of both grief over our loss and celebration of his life is nothing short of incredible. He has been one of an increasingly rare breed of academics who embrace disability activism. The countless lives he touched – his students, his colleagues, his friends, his family (his personal family and very extended disability family) – are a testament to his amazing ability to communicate and advocate for our fundamental civil rights.

Bill’s Facebook page is full of memories and tributes today, including stories and articles, like this wonderful profile in New Mobility Magazine. Here’s an excerpt concerning his work on bioethics issues:

The Underlying Problem: Devalued Lives 

In 2006, Peace’s career took a sharp turn after he read about the Ashley treatment. The treatment was a series of procedures performed, at the request of her parents, on a Seattle child with developmental disabilities named “Ashley X.” The surgeries were intended to stunt her growth, eliminate menstruation and prevent her from developing large breasts. 

It was a wake up call for Peace. “It wasn’t what they did that was horrible, it was that there was a 38-person bioethics meeting at one of the leading children’s hospitals in the nation, and they gave it the go-ahead,” he says. “They illegally sterilized a profoundly disabled child.” Soon after, he began work in bioethics and disability studies, while becoming a harsh critic of the cure industry. 

Little did Peace know, but his work in bioethics would hit very close to home. In 2010, he was hospitalized with a stage IV pressure sore. After an especially difficult debridement, a hospitalist encouraged him to discontinue the aggressive treatment and pursue end-of-life care. Peace refused the offer but the experience shattered him. “Somebody I had never met determined my life wasn’t worth living,” he says. 

It took almost two years to heal the wound, but Peace vowed to advocate against assisted suicide. The reason for doing so was simple. “People are needlessly dying, and there’s no nuanced view of disability within the medical community,” he says. He joined the board of directors of the advocacy group Not Dead Yet, and since then has become a leading national critic of the practice of assisted suicide.

Bill joined the NDY board in 2013. The year before, NDY reported on his groundbreaking article in a leading bioethics journal about that middle-of-the-night visit from a hospital physician recommending that he consider dying rather than receiving antibiotics for his pressure wound. The journal article is now behind a pay wall, but excerpts remain available in the NDY blogs and Bill told the story in his Bad Cripple Blog.

Bill Peace in the front.

The New Mobility article also included a great example of Bill’s activism following a workshop he did entitled “The Walking Dead and Assisted Suicide”, when he “led a procession of fellow scholars dressed as zombies across the Syracuse University campus.” (Photo by Stephen Sartori.)

Recently, complications developed from new pressure wounds, but the hospital that cared for him in these last several days was described by his family as respectful, showing the utmost kindness and trying very hard to save him from the infection that has taken him from us.

Months ago, if insurance had been willing to cover the type of therapeutic bed he needed to help heal the wounds, he might have made it through. I suspect it would have cost insurance much less than a week in an intensive care unit. Outrageous insurance decisions like this are killing people with disabilities. We lost Carrie Lucas in February this year, and now Bill. We’ll never know how many others, but this can never be acceptable and must stop!

Bill repeatedly challenged society’s “better dead than disabled” message. Stephen Drake, NDY’s research analyst, covered examples like these (note: some of the embedded links may not work anymore):

• Bill Peace and Stephen Kuusisto React to “The Crucifixion of Thomas Young” by Chris Hedges
• Bill Peace in Hastings Center Bioethics Forum: “Euthanasia in Belgium: The Untold Story”
• Train Wrecks and Being Bushwacked in the Land of Oz – Bill Peace, Danny Robert and Nadina LaSpina report on the Oz Show
• Blog Recommendation: William Peace on UK “interim” Guidelines on Swiss Suicide Tourists
• The Death of Christina Symanski – John Kelly and Bill Peace on Media, Perspective, Wrong Questions and Ignored Issues

For more of NDY’s blogs featuring Bill’s work, go here.

And for links to some of Bill’s Bad Cripple Blogs on NDY issues, many are listed on our articles page.

One of our favorite pieces is this great video satire:
YouTube: EZ Breezy Assisted Suicide w/ Bill Peace (and Tipsy Tullivan)

Bill Peace has left all of us a rich legacy spanning decades during this critical time for the disability rights movement. He will be deeply missed, and he won’t be forgotten.

Diane Coleman

Conscience rights of physicians and the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal

This article was published on June 30, 2019 by the Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia.

By Dr Catherine Ferrier
President: Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia

All Doctors are Needed

On May 15, 2019, the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed a lower court ruling defending the requirement of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) that dissenting physicians make “effective referrals” for euthanasia (“MAiD”).

We consider this decision to be not only wrong, but founded upon non-factual assumptions, contrary to the needs of patients, and contrary to the opinion of those doctors most aware of the needs of terminally ill patients. The Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP) in a recent messaging update states, notably: that MAID referral should not be the responsibility of the individual physician, but requires a separate, publicly accessible information service, and, of course, that dissenting physicians should be respected in their choice.

In its judgement the Court described CPSO policy in these terms:

“[The policies] strike a reasonable balance between patients’ interests and physicians’ Charter-protected religious freedom.”

Underlying this assessment lies the false assumption that the “rights” of objecting doctors are a threat to the “interests” of patients. Needless to say, in our view, the reason these doctors exercise their charter rights is to protect the interests of their patients.

In response to the judgement Dr. Nancy Whitmore, registrar and CEO of the CPSO, spoke of “ensuring patients get access to the care they need”. Again, we believe that euthanasia is not medical care, and that if patients were getting the care they needed, the demand for euthanasia would approach zero.

Above all, there is one key fact that has been insufficiently considered in this debate: that the vast majority of patients do not want to die, that they do not ask for euthanasia, and that they refuse it when offered.

In other words, the perception that objecting doctors, with their narrow personal prejudices, are somehow in conflict with the “interests” of their own patients is plainly false with regard to the majority. On the contrary, at great personal cost, these doctors are publicly defending the sort of care that is desired by the majority of patients.

It is evident that we are facing two distinct clienteles requiring two distinct services, and that there is a large discrepancy in the numerical importance of the two. In the Netherlands, for example, where euthanasia has been aggressively marketed to patients for nearly twenty years, only 13 % of cancer patients consent to die in this manner. We must ask ourselves, therefore: what acceptance of negative consequences are we prepared to require of the 87% who do not?

In this regard, The Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (as above) maintains that providing euthanasia is a service “distinct from palliative care”; and that “The Canadian public must be able to continue to trust that the principles of palliative care remain… to help people live as well as they can until their natural death.” A particular criticism is made of the so-called “duty to inform” being promoted by some euthanasia activists, which would require doctors to systematically inform seriously ill patients of their “right to die”. The CSPCP rightly observes that this “… could exert undue pressure or cause subtle/overt coercion of patients.” i.e. it is nothing less than universal suicidal suggestion imposed upon this vulnerable group.

Euthanasia enthusiasts often make their case in these terms: “It is legal; we pay for it with our taxes; and we have the right to enjoy it”. We would respond however, that the very same can be said of the life-centered care desired by the majority. This majority should be able to access medical care with the confident expectation that those doctors randomly assigned to them would never “give a lethal drug to anyone… nor… advise such a plan” (Hippocrates) , i.e. that they will be allowed to feel safe.

That is the root problem with the evolving forms of euthanasia implementation in Canada: The entire industry is being retooled to optimize the satisfaction of a small minority, to the serious detriment of that much larger share of patients who are non-suicidal. Or, as has been remarked (Le Devoir, July 2016): 

“Every citizen has the right to a smoke-free environment, but not to one that is free of euthanasia…”

Let us remember that the court cases leading to the legalization of euthanasia were only concerned with the decriminalization of such an act. It was decreed that a consenting doctor might euthanize a patient, under certain circumstances, without going to jail. That is all. It was never stated that society at large, or the medical profession (much less the individual doctor) would ever be responsible for providing such a “service”.

More generally, health care services, being accessed by different clienteles having different desired outcomes, must adjust to these competing demands. There may be specialized delivery systems, and there may be general facilities where the default procedure will logically favor the expected majority, ensuring reasonable minority access without reducing the quality and availability of majority service.

In this case, we believe that minority access should be perfectly satisfied with the simple legality of euthanasia, coupled with the free dissemination of information regarding service availability. Public funding for such information (not to mention funding for the procedure itself) would be a further, non-obligatory, gesture of goodwill.

On the other hand, consider the new standard of care required by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and upheld by the Court of Appeal, which will lead to patients justifiably living in fear of being treated by doctors who would be happy to euthanize them; who patiently (and even insistently) inform them of their “right to die”; and who await only the required consent to proceed. Is this not a paradigm hugely unfair to the non-suicidal majority?

But even that is not all, for onerous regulations requiring some physicians to do that to which they cannot in good conscience consent will necessarily force them out of practice or out of the country. How, we ask, can the satisfaction of a minority demand possibly justify the purging of doctors who are urgently required to serve the majority? There are not even enough doctors as things are now! And yet some of our best are to be drummed out under accusations of ideological impurity? The very idea surpasses the notion of “absurd”.

Let us be clear:

• The exercise of conscience rights by individual doctors does not threaten the interests of patients (Overall, doctor conscience has historically provided the long-term guarantee of those interests).
• The refusal of individual doctors to collaborate in euthanasia does not significantly affect access to that service (Supply is organically dynamic and grows with demand).
• It is not rational to reconfigure the entire health care system for optimal minority satisfaction when that transformation destroys the infrastructure designed to serve a different (and quantitatively greater) purpose.
• If there are two distinct clienteles with two distinct treatment models, then two parallel streams must be allowed to evolve independently.

And most importantly, the very last thing we need is to lose professionals who are ideally suited to serve.

Make euthanasia unimaginable.

Sincerely,
Catherine Ferrier
President

Kevin Dunn: A Tale of Two Films

By Kevin Dunn

Kevin Dunn in Guernsey

If someone told me that one day I would be travelling around the world to speak on euthanasia and assisted suicide I would have been hard pressed to believe them. I mean, who in their right mind would want to talk about death as a calling?
 
For most of my career, I was either in front of the camera entertaining —or behind it, producing films on things like dinosaurs, spies, entrepreneurs or modern history. However, as I began inching towards the age of 50 (I’m a young 54 as I write this) the subject matter for my films took a seismic shift towards social justice issues - and in particular, laws that imply that some lives are not worth living.

As I write this, I’m flying home from my 20th talk of 2019 - this time in Minnesota and Wisconsin. I call it my “Prophets of Hope” tour because I honestly believe that is where the solution lies. Each of us has to become a prophet of hope - a reason for someone’s tomorrow - especially in light of laws that tell others to give up on hope. For some reason, despite dire warnings from jurisdictions experienced with the cultural effects of euthanasia and assisted suicide, countries and states continue to enact laws that allow doctors to provide lethal injections or drugs to citizens who ‘qualify’ under certain criteria. What was once deemed unthinkable is now an option — and in many ways has become a subtle obligation —as fear of future suffering, losing autonomy or becoming a burden are among the top reasons why people request it.

In my recent film Fatal Flaws: Legalizing Assisted Death, I asked Dutch journalist Gerbert Van Loenen if there was anyone covering the other side of the euthanasia debate. He emphatically responded - ‘I’m afraid no one’. I found this especially alarming because the boundaries of the euthanasia law in the Netherlands are expanding to the point where even people who are ‘tired of life’ might get access to a lethal dose - legally - in the near future. I mean how could things have gone off the rails so badly that a civilized country would actually consider legalizing suicide for what would otherwise be diagnosed as depression and despair? Is it not bad enough that people are now asking for euthanasia at the first diagnosis of terminal illnesses? Where was the media in all of this? Journalists have not been doing their job. This is what inspired me to do more.
 

Alex Schadenberg & Kevin Dunn

Thankfully there are a handful of people who have been doing this issue justice - and one in particular for the past two decades: my friend Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition — a position he’s held for the past 20 years. Everywhere I speak, anytime I mention his name, Alex is known and respected. Even those who disagree with him have good things to say about his candour.

In November of 2015, I received an email from Alex asking me to create an information video which would educate people on these issues. He wanted to expose the risks associated with turning these previously criminal acts into some form of health care. Alex has been ringing the alarm bells since 1999, aware that the Kevorkian ideology was slowly trickling across the US border into Canada - and of the subtle but deadly introduction of language that was changing the act of murder into mercy killing; and assisted suicide into something called death with dignity.

With funding from the EPC, the information video quickly grew into a major documentary called The Euthanasia Deception produced by EPC and DunnMedia. The film took my crew and I through Belgium and various places in Canada where we found a plethora of underrepresented people who were waiting to tell their story on how these laws had deceived them. Patients, family members, medical professionals and ethicists all weighed in to paint a very grim picture of assisted dying laws.

Purchase the Fatal Flaws film (Link).
Purchase the Euthanasia Deception documentary (Link).

Just months after releasing The Euthanasia Deception, Alex and I heard about a strange phenomenon in the Netherlands called “Euthanasia Week”: an annual event of conferences, films and media interviews all geared at extolling the ‘virtue’ of Holland’s euthanasia law. This became one of the focal points for our next film, Fatal Flaws . It is now being screened and distributed internationally and won numerous awards.

Both films speak with authority because we hear stories from victims directly. As a filmmaker I know how important this is. I’ve seen first hand how the assisted death philosophy defines the person by their illness. This is absurd. We should never be defined by what malady assails us. We are defined by our worth as a created human being, deserving of the best care, the best pain management, the kind of dignity that says “I will walk with you and fight for you to the end - I will never abandon you by ending your life prematurely. As Mark Davis Pickup aptly noted in The Euthanasia Deception, “We should never judge tomorrow based on the fears of today.” Mark has lived with Multiple Sclerosis for over 30 years.

Margreet Van der Valk's mother

I am formalizing plans for a speaking tour in Australia in August. It would seem the land down under is quickly falling prey to the culture of abandonment which we have sadly embraced here in North America and in parts of Europe. I share the stories of those who bravely came forward on camera to tell me how these laws have taken them or their loved ones to the brink of death. Sadly, some are not living anymore - like 29 year old Aurelia Brouwers whose life was cut short by euthanasia for psychiatric reasons; Tom Mortier’s mother who was euthanized for depression; and Margreet Van der Valk’s mother who was euthanized without request . I carry these heartbreaking stories with me everywhere I speak.

At the end of my talks, people always ask me for one practical thing they can do to stem the tide. Yes, we must step up to inform our politicians and medical professionals of what these laws imply. Sharing these films are a great start. However we must do more. We must challenge ourselves daily to become a prophet of hope: the reason for someone’s tomorrow. It could be as simple as visiting elderly parents, volunteering to drive someone to the hospital or playing Scrabble for an hour with a senior in a nursing home. These are ways we inspire hope in others so they don’t reach for these laws.

It’s been quite a journey creating these films along with with Alex Schadenberg - a true Prophet of Hope for our times. Thanks, too for inspiring me to take this ‘show on the road’ and inspire others. You can be sure I’ll be toasting your 20th - perhaps from some Irish pub in the land down under!

Kevin Dunn can be reached through his Website: www.KevinDunn.info

Vincent Lambert ordered to die by France's highest appeal court.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sign the petition: Protect Vincent Lambert's Life.

Vincent Lambert

On Friday, June 28, France's highest appeal court ordered that treatment and care, including food and fluid, be withdrawn from Vincent Lambert, a man who was cognitively disabled in a motorcycle accident injury in 2008.

On May 20, Euro news reported that doctors, at a hospital in Reims France, were sedating Lambert as part of the process to withdraw fluids and food to cause him to die by dehydration, as approved by a court order.

Later, that day, Euro news reported that the Court of Appeal in Paris ordered that Lambert be fed and hydrated. The decision was in response to the UN Disability Rights Commission appeal. BBC news reported Lambert's mother as saying:

"They are going to restore nutrition and give him drink. For once I am proud of the courts," she said.

According to France 24, on Friday the Cour de Cassation reversed the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal. The article stated:

The ruling reverses a decision by another Paris court which last month ordered that Lambert's feeding tubes be reinserted, just hours after doctors began switching off life support.

The Cour de Cassation did not consider the arguments for or against keeping Lambert alive, but only the question of whether the lower court was competent to rule on the case. 

In Friday's decision, it found that the appeal court was not competent in a ruling that is final.

The news article misrepresents Lambert's condition by stating the court approved turning off life support mechanisms. Lambert is not on "life support" he only needs to eat and drink.

In early May, 2019, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of People with Disabilities intervened in the Lambert case stating that causing Lambert's death by dehydration contravened his rights as a person with disabilities. Section 25f of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities requires nations to:

25(f) Prevent discriminatory denial of health care or health services or food and fluids on the basis of disability.

Therefore the decision of the highest court of appeal actually denies Lambert human rights.

Lambert is a cognitively disabled man who is not otherwise dying or nearing death. To directly and intentionally cause his death by withholding fluids is euthanasia by dehydration. If his fluids are withheld his death would not be from his medical condition but rather, he would die by dehydration, a terrible death.