Margaret Dore: New Jersey Motion for Reconsideration, on assisted suicide law.

This article was published by Choice is an Illusion on April 24, 2020.

Previous articles:

1. New Jersey euthanasia act must be set-aside (Link).
2. New Jersey appellate court lifts restraining order that stopped assisted suicide (Link).
3. Court order temporarily stops assisted suicide in New Jersey (Link).

Margaret Dore

To view Dore's brief as submitted, click here.

I. RELIEF REQUESTED

Margaret Dore moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order dated April 1, 2020, which upheld the constitutionality of the Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act.[1]

II. THE ACT MUST BE SET ASIDE

The Court did not reach the Act’s violation of the object in title rule, which is dispositive to set the Act aside. The Court should reach this issue now to overturn the Act.

The Court’s order states that Dore asked the Court to declare the Act unconstitutional “on grounds not asserted by plaintiffs.”[2] The plaintiffs, did, however, ask the Court to rule on the issue, stating:

Ms. Dore’s brief should be considered by the Court since if the law is unconstitutional under the single object rule, it should be the Court’s responsibility to raise that issue sua sponte even if not raised by Ms. Dore or the Plaintiffs.[3]

The Legislature understood that it was enacting a strictly voluntary law limited to assisted suicide for dying patients.[4] The prior judge expressed a similar view. See, for example, the transcript from the hearing on August 14, 2019 (“This case is not about euthanasia”).[5]

This case, however, is about euthanasia. The Act is also not limited to dying people. Patient voluntariness is allowed, but not required. These are material facts not disclosed by the Act’s title and related findings. The Act is unconstitutional and must be set aside.

III. WHAT THE ACT DOES

A. The Act Allows Physician-Assisted Suicide, Which It Terms Medical Aid in Dying

Dictionary definitions of “assisted suicide,” include “suicide committed by someone with assistance from another person especially: physician-assisted suicide.”[6] Dictionary definitions of physician-assisted suicide include the following:

[S]uicide by a patient facilitated by means (such as a drug prescription) or by information (such as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient's intent.[7]

Here, the Act allows this same practice, which it terms medical aid in dying. The Act, “Findings, Declarations Relative to Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill,” states:

[T]his State affirms the right of a qualified terminally ill patient, protected by appropriate safeguards, to obtain medication that the patient may choose to self-administer in order to bring about the patient’s humane and dignified death. (Emphasis added).[8]

The Act also specifically describes physician involvement to write the prescription for the lethal dose.[9] The bottom line, the Act allows physician-assisted suicide as traditionally defined, which it terms medical aid in dying.

B. The Act Legalizes Assisted Suicide as a “Right”

Again, the Act states:

[T]his State affirms the right of a qualified terminally ill patient, protected by appropriate safeguards, to obtain medication that the patient may choose to self-administer in order to bring about the patient’s humane and dignified death. (Emphasis added).[10]

If for the purpose of argument, this provision is limited to allowing voluntary assisted suicide (because it says that the patient may chose to self-administer the lethal medication), the Act will nonetheless also allow euthanasia due to assisted suicide being described as a “right.” This is true due to: (1) The New Mexico Supreme Court Decision, Morris v. Brandenburg, 376 P.3d 836 (2016); and (2) the Americans with Disability Act, both of which are discussed below.

1. Morris v. Brandenburg

The 5-0 decision states in part:

[W]e agree with the legitimate concern that recognizing a right to physician aid in dying will lead to voluntary or involuntary euthanasia because if it is a right, it must be made available to everyone, even when a duly appointed surrogate makes the decision, and even when the patient is unable to self-administer the life-ending medication. (Emphasis added).[11] 

2. The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)

The ADA is “a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in every day activities, including medical services.”[12] “Medical care providers are required to make their services available in an accessible manner.”[13]This includes:

Reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures to make healthcare services fully available to individuals with disabilities, unless the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the services (i.e., alter the essential nature of the services). (Emphasis added).[14]

Here, the Act legalized “medical aid in dying” as part of New Jersey healthcare.[15] If for the purpose of argument, the Act does in fact require self-administration, the ADA will require a reasonable accommodation for individuals unable to self-administer. This will mean administration by another person. The Act will thereby require euthanasia as traditionally defined.

IV. HOW THE ACT WORKS

The Act has an application process to obtain the lethal dose.[16] Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight.[17] No witness, not even a doctor, is required to present at the death.[18]

V. “ELIGIBLE” PERSONS MAY HAVE YEARS TO LIVE

The Act applies to “terminally ill” individuals. The Act states:

“Terminally ill” means that the patient is in the terminal stage of an irreversibly fatal illness, disease, or condition with a prognosis, based upon reasonable medical certainty, of a life expectancy of six months or less.[19]

Such persons may, in fact, have years or decades to live. This is true due to actual mistakes (the test results got switched), and because predicting life expectancy is not an exact science.[20] Also, sometimes doctors are wrong, as in way wrong.

Consider John Norton, diagnosed with ALS at age 18.[21] He was told that he would get progressively worse (be paralyzed) and die in three to five years.[22] Instead, the disease progression stopped on its own.[23] In a 2012 affidavit, at age 74, he states:

If assisted suicide or euthanasia had been available to me in the 1950's, I would have missed the bulk of my life and my life yet to come.[24]

VI. ELDER ABUSE

A. Elder Abuse Is a Problem in New Jersey; Perpetrators Are Often Family Members

Elder abuse is a problem in New Jersey and throughout the United States.[25] Nationwide, prominent cases include actor Mickey Rooney and New York philanthropist, Brooke Astor.[26]

Perpetrators are often family members.[27] They typically start out with small crimes, such as stealing jewelry and blank checks, before moving on to larger items or to coercing victims to change their wills or to liquidate their assets.[28] Amy Mix, of the AARP Legal Counsel of the Elderly, states:

[Perpetrators] are family members, lots are friends, often people who befriend a senior through church .... We had a senior victim who had given her life savings away to some scammer who told her that she’d won the lottery and would have to pay the taxes ahead of time.... The scammer found the victim using information in her husband’s obituary.[29] 

B. Elder Abuse Is Rarely Reported, Victims Don’t Want to Report Their Children as Abusers

The vast majority of elder abuse cases are not reported to the authorities. Reasons include:

[F]ear of retaliation, lack of physical and/or cognitive ability to report, or because they don’t want to get the abuser (90% of whom are family members) in trouble. (Emphasis added).[30] 

C. Elder Abuse Is Sometimes Fatal

In some cases, elder abuse is fatal. More notorious cases include California’s “black widow” murders, in which two women took out life insurance policies on homeless men.[31] Their first victim was 73 year old Paul Vados, whose death was staged to look like a hit and run accident.[32] The women collected $589,124.93.[33]

Consider also, People v. Stuart in which an adult child killed her mother with a pillow, so as to inherit. The Court observed:

Financial considerations [are] an all too common motivation for killing someone.[34]

VII. PENALTIES PROVIDE A DETERRENT; NOT THE ACT

While elder abuse is a largely uncontrolled problem, there are penalties for doing it and when perpetrators are caught, they can be punished. The California black widows and the adult child who killed her mother with a pillow, discussed above, served prison time. With a risk of punishment, there is a deterrent to protect other potential victims from harm.

This is in contrast to the Act, in which purported protections are illusory, which renders potential victims sitting ducks to their adult children and other predators, without recourse. See below.

VIII. THE ACT IS STACKED AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL

A. “Even If a Patient Struggled, Who Would Know?”

The Act has no oversight over administration of the lethal dose.[35] In addition, the drugs used are water and alcohol soluble, such that they can be injected into a sleeping or restrained person without consent.[36] Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, puts it this way:

With assisted suicide laws in Washington and Oregon [and with the Act], perpetrators can . . . take a “legal” route, by getting an elder to sign a lethal dose request. Once the prescription is filled, there is no supervision over administration. Even if a patient struggled, “who would know?” (Emphasis added).[37] 

B. Someone Else Is Allowed to Communicate on the Patient’s Behalf

The Act uses the word, “capable,” which is specially defined to allow other people to communicate on the patient’s behalf, as long as they are “familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating.” The Act states:

“Capable” means having the capacity to make health care decisions and to communicate them to a health care provider, including communication through persons familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating if those persons are available. (Emphasis added).[38]

Being familiar with a patient’s manner of communicating is a very minimal standard. Consider, for example, a doctor’s assistant who is familiar with a patient’s “manner of communicating” in Spanish, but she herself does not understand Spanish. That, however, would be good enough for her to communicate on the patient’s behalf during the lethal dose request process. The patient would not necessarily be in control of his or her fate.

C. Purported Protections Are Illusory

The Act says that the attending physician is to ensure that all “appropriate” steps are carried out in “accordance” with the Act as necessary. The Act states:

The attending physician shall ensure that all appropriate steps are carried out in accordance with the provisions of [the Act] . . . including such actions as are necessary to: . . . 

(6) recommend that the patient participate in a consultation concerning concurrent or additional treatment opportunities . . . [and] 

(8) inform the patient of the patient’s opportunity to rescind the request . . . . (Emphasis added).[39]

The Act does not define "appropriate" or “accordance.”[40] Dictionary definitions of appropriate include "suitable or proper” in the circumstances.[41] Dictionary definitions of accordance include “in the spirit of,” meaning “in thought or intention.”[42]

With these definitions, the attending physician’s view of what is "suitable or proper" is enough for compliance with patient protections. The physician's "thought or intention" is similarly sufficient. The purported protections are neutralized to whatever an attending physician happens to feel is appropriate and/or had a thought or intention to do. The “protections” are unenforceable.

D. Deaths in Accordance With the Act Are “Natural” as a Matter of Law 

1. Action taken in accordance with the Act is not suicide or homicide

The Act states:

Any action taken in accordance with the provisions of [the Act] shall not constitute patient abuse or neglect, suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing, euthanasia, or homicide under any law of this State. (Emphasis added).[43] 

2. The Act requires deaths to be reported as “natural”

In New Jersey, death certificates have five categories for reporting the manner of death, four of which are substantive: (1) natural; (2) accident; (3) suicide; and (4) homicide.[44] The fifth category is “undetermined.”[45]

As noted in the preceding section, a death occurring in accordance with the Act does not constitute suicide or homicide under any law of the State. The death is also not an accident due its having been an intended event. This leaves “natural.” Deaths occurring pursuant to the Act are natural as a matter of law.

E. Dr. Shipman and the Call for Death Certificate Reform

Per a 2005 article in the UK’s Guardian newspaper, there was a public inquiry regarding Dr. Harold Shipman, which determined that he had “killed at least 250 of his patients over 23 years.”[46] The inquiry also found:

that by issuing death certificates stating natural causes, the serial killer [Shipman] was able to evade investigation by coroners. (Emphasis added). [47]

Per a subsequent article in 2015, proposed reforms included having a medical examiner review death certificates, so as to improve patient safety.[48] The New Jersey Act has instead moved in the opposite direction to require that deaths be reported as natural. Doctors and other perpetrators have been enabled to kill under mandatory legal cover.

F. The Act Renders New Jersey Residents Sitting Ducks to Their Heirs and Other Predators

New Jersey’s slayer statute prevents a killer from inheriting from his or her victim. The statute states:

[A]n individual who is responsible for the intentional killing of the decedent forfeits [his or her inheritance].”[49]

The rational is that a criminal should not be allowed to benefit from his or her crime.[50]

Under the Act, however, a person who intentionally kills another person is allowed to inherit. This is due to the deaths being certified as natural. With the passage of the Act, New Jersey residents with money, meaning the middle class and above, have been rendered sitting ducks to their heirs and other predators.

IX. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

A. My Clients Suffered Trauma in Oregon and Washington State

I have had two cases where my clients suffered trauma due to legal assisted suicide. In the first case, one side of my client’s family wanted her father to take the lethal dose, while the other side did not. The father spent the last months of his life caught in the middle and torn over whether he should kill himself. My client was severely traumatized. The father did not take the lethal dose and died a natural death.

In the other case, my client’s father died via the lethal dose at a suicide party. It’s not clear, however, that administration of the lethal dose was voluntary. A man who was present told my client that his father had refused to take the lethal dose when it was delivered, stating: "You're not killing me. I'm going to bed." The man also said that my client’s father took the lethal dose the next night when he (the father) was already intoxicated on alcohol. The man who told this to my client subsequently changed his story.

My client, although he was not present, was traumatized over the incident, and also by the sudden loss of his father.

B. In Oregon, Other Suicides Have Increased with Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide

Government reports from Oregon show a positive correlation between the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and an increase in other (conventional) suicides. This correlation is consistent with a suicide contagion in which legalizing physician-assisted suicide encouraged other suicides.[51]

C. The Felony for Undue Influence Is Illusory

The Act has a felony for “undue influence,” which is not defined and has no elements of proof. The Act merely states:

A person who . . . exerts undue influence on a patient to request medication pursuant to [the Act] or to destroy a rescission of a request is guilty of a crime of the third degree. (Emphasis added).[52]

The Act also specifically allows conduct normally used to prove undue influence. For example, the Act allows an infirm person with a terminal disease to request the lethal dose. Physical weakness is a factor generally used to PROVE undue influence.[53]

How do you prove that undue influence occurred when the Act does not define it, and the Act also allows conduct generally used to prove it? You can’t. The felony for undue influence is illusory and unenforceable.

X. THE ACT VIOLATES THE OBJECT IN TITLE RULE

As noted supra, the New Jersey Constitution governs permissible legislative conduct when enacting legislation. To that end, the Constitution sets forth the object in title rule, as follows:

To avoid improper influences which may result from intermixing in one and the same act such things as have no proper relation to each other, every law shall embrace but one object, and that [object] shall be expressed in the title. (Emphasis added).[54]

The rule is designed to protect against the misleading of the people. State v Guida, 119 N.J.L. 464, 465-466 (1938), states:

The sole requirement is that [the title] ‘shall express its object in a general way so as to be intelligible to the ordinary reader’; and it is the settled rule that a statute will not be judicially declared inoperative and unenforceable on this ground unless the deficiency plainly exists. (Emphasis added).

In the case at bar, the deficiency plainly exists. The Legislature, the Attorney General and the prior court were all mislead by the Act’s deceptive title, implying that the Act is limited to voluntary assisted suicide, when the Act also allows non-voluntary euthanasia. This Court has also been mislead. The Act must be set aside.

Respectfully submitted this 18th day of April 2020

Margaret Dore Esq., MBA, appearing pro se
Law Office of Margaret K. Dore, PS
1001 4th Avenue, Suite 4400
Seattle, WA 98154
206 697 1217

Footnotes:

[1] The Act is attached in the brief's appendix, at pages A-1 to A-15.
[2] The Order, page 35, attached in the brief's appendix, at page A-20.
[3] Letter from E. David Smith, Esq., to Judge Lougy, dated March 20, 2020, in the brief's appendix at page A-23.
[4] See for example, the Order on Emergent Motion, Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, August 27, 2019 (“the process is entirely voluntary on the part of all participants, including patients...”). Attached in the brief's appendix at page A-63.
[5] Transcript attached in the brief's appendix at page A-62.
[6] Merriam-Webster, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-27; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assisted%20suicide?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld
[7] Merriam-Webster, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-28.
[8] The Act, Section C.26:16-2, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-1.
[9] The Act, Section C.26:16-6, states:

The attending physician shall ensure that all appropriate steps are carried out in accordance with the provisions of [the Act] before writing a prescription for medication that a qualified terminally ill patient may choose to self-administer pursuant to [the Act]. (Attached in the brief's appendix at page A-4).

[10] The Act, page 1, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-1
[11] Morris v. Brandenburg, 376 P.3d 836, 848 (2016).
[12] U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Americans with Disabilities Act: Access to Medical Care for Individuals with Mobility Disabilities,” July 2010, available at https://www.ada.gov/medcare_mobility_ta/medcare_ta.htm
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] The Act, Findings, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-1.
[16] See the Act, attached in the brief's appendix at pp. A-3 to A-7.
[17] See the Act in its entirety, in the brief's appendix at pp. A-1 to A-15.
[18] Id.
[19] The Act, C.26:16-3, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-3.
[20] Cf. Jessica Firger, "12 Million Americans Misdiagnosed Each Year," CBS NEWS, April 17, 2014, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-29; and Nina Shapiro, "Terminal Uncertainty — Washington's New 'Death with Dignity' Law Allows Doctors to Help People Commit Suicide — Once They've Determined That the Patient Has Only Six Months to Live. But What If They're Wrong?,” The Seattle Weekly, 01/14/09, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-30 to A-33.
[21] Affidavit of John Norton, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-34 to A-36.
[22] Id., ¶ 1.
[23] Id., ¶ 4.
[24] Id., ¶ 5.
[25] See e.g., Dansky Katz Ringold York, Attorneys at Law, Marlton New Jersey, “How to Spot and Prevent Elder Financial Abuse,” April 27, 2016, at https://njlegalhelp.com/how-to-spot-and-prevent-elder-financial-abuse; and Beth Fitzgerald, “New Jersey Considers Law to Prevent ‘Granny Snatching,’” New Jersey Spotlight, MAY 21, 2012, http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/0520/2037/
[26] Tom Cohen, “Mickey Rooney tells [U.S.] Senate panel he was a victim of elder abuse,” CNN, March 2, 2011; Carole Fleck, “Brooke Astor’s Grandson Tells Senate Panel of Financial Abuse,” AARP Bulletin Today, 02/05/2015 (“The grandson of socialite Brooke Astor, who blew the whistle on his father for plundering millions from his grandmother’s estate, told the Senate panel Wednesday that his grandmother’s greatest legacy may be the national attention focused on elder financial abuse.”), and Matthew Talbot, “Issues of Prosecuting Elder Abuse: The Casey Kasem Case,” Talbot Law Group, PC, January 4, 2016, available at
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/issues-prosecuting-elder-abuse-casey-kasem-case-matthew-talbot
[27] Id., MetLife Mature Market Institute, “Broken Trust: Elders, Familyand Finances, A Study on Elder Abuse Prevention,” March 2009, at  http://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/mmi-broken-trust.pdf
[28] Id.
[29] Kathryn Alfisi, “Breaking the Silence on Elder Abuse,” Washington Lawyer, February 2015.
[30] “Adult Protective Services: Facts and Fiction,” Division of Aging Services, NJ Department of Human Services, available at
http://www.nj.gov/humanservices/dmahs/home/Adult_Protective_Services_Training.pdf
[31] See People v. Rutterschmidt, 55 Cal.4th 650 (2012). See also  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Widow_Murders
[32] Rutterschmidt, at 652-3.
[33] Id. at 652.
[34] 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 129, 143 (2007), available at
https://www.leagle.com/decision/200719667calrptr3d1291182
[35] See the Act in its entirety, attached in the brief's appendix at A-1 to A-15.
[36] The drugs used include Secobarbital, Pentobarbital and Phenobarbital, which are water and/or alcohol soluble. See excerpt from Oregon’s and Washington’s annual reports, attached hereto at A-41 & A-42 (listing these drugs). See also http://www.drugs.com/pr/seconal-sodium.html,  http://www.drugs.com/pro/nembutal.html and
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2977013
[37] Alex Schadenberg, Letter to the Editor, “Elder abuse a growing problem,” The Advocate, Official Publication of the Idaho State Bar, October 2010, page 14.
[38] The Act, C.26:16-3, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-2.
[39] Attached in the brief's appendix at page A-4.
[40] See the Act in its entirety, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-1 through A-15.
[41] Attached in the brief's appendix at page A-43.
[42] Attached in the brief's appendix at pages 44 and A-45.
[43] The Act, C.26:16-17.a.(2), attached in the brief's appendix at page A-9.
[44] Andrew L. Falzon, MD, and Sindy M. Paul, MPH, “Death Investigation and Certification in New Jersey,” MD Advisor, a journal for the New Jersey medical community, 2016. (Attached in the brief's appendix at page A-46).
[45] Id.
[46] David Batty, “Q & A: Harold Shipman,” The Guardian, 08/25/05, at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/aug/25/health.shipman. (Attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-47 to A-49).
[47] Id., attached in the brief's appendix at page A-49.
[48] Press Association, “Death Certificate Reform Delays ‘Incomprehensible,”
The Guardian, January 21, 2015, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-50 to A-51.
[49] NJ Rev Stat § 3B:7-1.1, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-52 and A-53.
[50] Cf. Ilene S. Cooper and Jaclene D'Agostino, "Forfeiture and New York's 'Slayer Rule', NYSBA Journal, March/April 2015, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-54.
[51] For a more information, see Margaret Dore, “In Oregon, Other Suicides Have Increased with Legalization of Assisted Suicide,” August 18, 2017, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-55 to A-57. See also the Declaration of Williard Johnston, MD, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-58 to A-60.
[52] Attached in the brief's appendix at page A-10.
[53] Cf. Neugebauer v. Neugebauer, 804 N.W.2d 450, ¶17 (2011)(“physical . . . weakness is always material upon the question of undue influence”).

The Covid-19 crisis has led to more cultural loneliness. Have you called your mom today?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have published several articles about the epidemic of loneliness and isolation and how it effects the physical and psychological health of people. Loneliness and isolation also leads to requests for assisted death.

• Loneliness is an epidemic among seniors that requires a caring response. 
• Loneliness is an epidemic that can be detrimental to your health.  
• Being with others cures the epidemic of loneliness.  
• Suicide epidemic exacerbated by loneliness.

A British study found that 22% of seniors, over the age of 65 will talk to only three or fewer people per week. A September 7, 2019 article in studyfinds.org reported:

According to the survey of 1,896 seniors over 65 in the United Kingdom, more than one in five (22%) will have a conversation with no more than just three people over the span of an entire week! That translates to nearly 2.6 million elderly folks who don’t enjoy regular human contact on a daily basis. Perhaps most alarming though is researchers say an alarming 225,000 individuals will go a week without talking to anyone face-to-face.

We can reduce the scourge of suicide and the cultural abandonment associated with assisted death, by caring for and being with others at their time of need. It is essential that people who feel that their life lacks value or purpose, or feel that no one cares, is offered purpose, support and genuine hope from their significant community.

The Covid-19 crisis and social distancing has led to more loneliness and social isolation.

One answer is to call your friends and family. A call to your family and friends can make a difference. Some families are communicating by video over the internet. This is an excellent way to communicate with others.

Your call may be the only call that your mother receives today.

Dutch Supreme Court approves euthanasia for dementia.

This article was published by National Review online on April 21, 2020.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

More than 20 years ago, the Dutch Supreme Court approved the assisted suicide of a woman in despair because her children had died. So we shouldn’t be surprised that it has now explicitly approved the forced euthanasia of patients with dementia if they asked to be killed before becoming incompetent. From Reuters:

The Dutch Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that doctors could legally carry out euthanasia on people with advanced dementia who had earlier put their wishes in writing even if they could no longer confirm them because of their illness.

The ruling is a landmark in Dutch euthanasia legislation which up to now had required patients to confirm euthanasia requests. This had not been considered possible for mentally incapacitated patients like advanced dementia sufferers.

“A doctor can carry out an (earlier) written request for euthanasia from people with advanced dementia,” the Supreme Court said in a summary of its decision.

What the Reuters story failed to mention — and apparently the Supreme Court found to be irrelevant — is that the case in question involved a woman who fought against being killed. Nor does the story mention that the doctor had drugged the woman before starting to euthanize her, and that the doctor instructed the family to hold the struggling woman down so that she could administer the lethal injection. Moreover, the patient had also stated in her instructions that she wanted to decide “when” the time for death had come — which she never did. The termination “choice” was made by the doctor and/or family in violation of the patient’s advance directive.

But why would the Dutch Supreme Court let inconvenient facts get in the way of furthering the Netherlands’ ever-expanding national killing policy that already permits infanticide, joint geriatric euthanasia of married couples, termination of the mentally ill, conjoining euthanasia with organ harvesting, and the lethal injections of people with disabilities?

Ontario MAiD (euthanasia) deaths increase during Covid-19 crisis.

Sign the Petition: Stop euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link)

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Ontario Office of the Chief Coroner has released new data for MAiD (euthanasia and assisted suicide deaths). In Ontario between June 17, 2016 and March 31, 2020, there have been 4888 reported assisted deaths with 199 reported assisted deaths in March 2020 alone.
 
In Ontario there were 1789 reported assisted deaths in 2019, 1499 in 2018, 841 in 2017, and 189 in 2016. 

The new data indicates that there were 570 reported assisted deaths in the first three months of the year with 199 in March alone. The euthanasia rate is sadly increasing.

Sign the Petition: Stop euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link)

Parliament is currently debating Bill C-7, a bill to expand euthanasia in Canada. Bill C-7 amends the euthanasia law by eliminating the "terminal illness" requirement, allowing advanced requests for euthanasia, eliminating the 10 day waiting "reflection" period and it falsely claims to prohibit euthanasia for mental illness.

If Bill C-7 passes without amendments, it will give Canada the most extreme euthanasia law in the world and result in a greater increase in deaths by lethal injection.

A recent CBC Radio show by Duncan McCue, interviewed Stefanie Green, President of the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers who explained how MAiD can be done on a patient with Covid-19. Green stated:

"I have provided for MAID on the same day that I've met someone on certain occasions," 

"It's not common … MAID is a process that requires rigorous procedure and safeguarding and is meant to be that way."

Green then explained that "MAID applications can be expedited if two assessing physicians agree a patient is at "imminent risk" of losing their capacity or life, they can forgo the typical 10 day reflection period required by law. Green then stated:

"If they're about to die, or we think they're going to die within 10 days, we actually can go ahead and waive that reflection period and move quicker,"

I recently reported on an article written by Globe and Mail reporter Kelly Grant stating that the Ottawa and Hamilton regions temporarily stopped providing euthanasia "MAiD services" during the Covid-19 pandemic. Grant wrote:

The Champlain Regional MAID Network, which serves Ottawa and the surrounding area, issued a notice on Wednesday that it was shutting down the service in hospitals and homes to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 and to conserve health-care resources. 

Hamilton Health Sciences, a hospital network with 10 sites, has also stopped providing assisted dying within its walls.

It is possible that the MAiD (euthanasia) data will indicate a slowing trend in April 2020 due to Covid-19.

Do you have a personal euthanasia story? Sharing your story may help us prevent other euthanasia deaths. Contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition  at: 1-877-439-3348 or info@epcc.ca.

Canadians oppose euthanasia for mental illness and child euthanasia. Canada must reject Bill C-7.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Petition: Stop euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link)

On February 24, 2020 Canada's federal government introduced Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). 

Bill C-7 is the federal government's response to the Quebec Court decision that struck down the section of Canada's euthanasia law requiring that "natural death be reasonably foreseeable" to qualify for death by euthanasia (lethal injection).

Bill C-7 amends the euthanasia law by eliminating the "terminal illness" requirement, allowing advanced requests for euthanasia, and removing the 10 day waiting period. It also falsely claims to prohibit euthanasia for mental illness.

Bill C-7, a bill to amend Canada's euthanasia (MAiD) law, if passed without amendments, will make Canada's euthanasia law the most permissive in the world.
 
Bill C-7, appears to be designed by the results of the online survey that was conducted in January 2020. On January 14, I urged EPC supporters to participate in the Canadian Department of Justice Medical Assistance in Dying consultation questionnaire. In my article I stated:

The language of the consultation questionnaire is not great, nonetheless, the questionnaire allows you to leave further comments.

On January 15 I published a Guide to answering the Questionnaire. The guide had more than 19,000 page views.

The assessment of the public consultation on Medical Assistance in Dying provides greater clarity concerning Bill C-7.

According to the consultation indicates that, Canadians don't want euthanasia for mental illness or child euthanasia. The assessment of the public consultation states:

Theme 4 - Concerns with expanding eligibility for MAID

Comments under this theme included concerns with expanding eligibility for MAID to those who suffer from mental illness and mature minors.

A majority of those who provided comments were not in favour of extending MAID to people who suffer from mental illness. They expressed concerns that people with mental health issues, such as depression, may feel that MAID is their only option, when effective therapies could lead to full recovery. Rather than extending the option to terminate lives, many respondents felt that the focus should be on increasing preventative measures, supports, resources, and intensive treatment for people with mental health issues, as well as increasing resources for people with physical disabilities. Some noted that people with mental illness, and those with physical and intellectual disabilities, are especially vulnerable to manipulation and abuse, or may feel like a burden on family, friends or the healthcare system, and suggested different and specific qualifying criteria for these groups.

In contrast, others felt that people suffering from mental illness should be eligible for MAID in certain circumstances (e.g., chronic, severe, disabling, treatment-resistant disorders). Some noted that mental health conditions can result in suffering that is as painful as physical disorders and not respond to treatment, resulting in people making dangerous suicide attempts rather than ending their life in a safe way.

Most respondents did not support MAID being extended to minors due to their state of development and the risk that they would make an irreversible decision and die before their time. Others were in support of extending MAID to minors in cases of terminal and incurable diseases, with proper safeguards in place.

Theme 4 explains why Bill C-7 did not extend euthanasia to children and why the government claims that the bill prevents euthanasia for mental illness. Sadly, Bill C-7 does not prevent euthanasia for mental illness.

I reported, in September 2019, that the Quebec court expanded Canada's euthanasia law by eliminating the requirement that only terminally ill people could be killed by lethal injection.

By eliminating the "terminal illness" requirement, the court decision also expanded euthanasia to people with psychological conditions alone. Canada's euthanasia law states that a person qualifies for euthanasia if:

the illness, disease or disability or that state of decline causes them enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable.

Before the Quebec court decision, a person didn't qualify for euthanasia based on psychological reasons alone since the law required that a person's "natural death be reasonably foreseeable." Since the Quebec court struck down this requirement, the law now permits euthanasia for psychological reasons.

Bill C-7 pretends to prevent euthanasia for "mental illness". Section (2.‍1) of Bill C-7 states:

For the purposes of paragraph (2)‍(a), a mental illness is not considered to be an illness, disease or disability.

This statement does not prevent euthanasia for mental illness or psychological reasons since the law specifically permits it. To prevent euthanasia for "mental illness" the bill would need to properly define "mental illness."

The government has previously stated that it plans to have an official five-year review of the euthanasia law starting in June 2020.

The federal government needs to reject Bill C-7 and conduct a proper review of the law, as promised, starting in June 2020.

Petition: Stop euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link).

Eugenics Must Not Be Allowed To Sneak In With Coronavirus

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Gordon MacDonald

Dr Gordon MacDonald, who is the CEO of the Care Not Killing Alliance in the UK has written an insightful article that was published in the Huffington Post on April 19, 2020.

MacDonald writes about how eugenics must not be allowed to sneak into the healthcare system through our response to the Covid-19 crisis. MacDonald thanks the healthcare providers for their incredible response to the Coronavirus but he sends a warning to the British healthcare system about the dark history of eugenics. MacDonald writes:

Doctors will face difficult decisions over the coming weeks and months as the capacity of the healthcare system is pushed beyond its limits. But we must resist these siren voices, because we can’t allow a return to the eugenics movement and its dark past.

MacDonad explains the history of eugenics:

The eugenics movement started in Britain during the late 19th Century, arising in the context of social Darwinism and the theory of the survival of the fittest. It quickly spread to other Western countries. It led to abuses such as the sterilisation of people with mental illness or learning difficulties in the USA during the 1920s. The movement reached its awful peak in Nazi Germany during the late 1930s with the euthanising of disabled people and those who had learning disabilities.

The underlying philosophy was of racial and genetic superiority and anyone who did not fit this model, or that was considered to be less than perfect, had “a life not worthy to be lived”. This dangerous philosophy ultimately resulted in the slaughter of six million Jews and five million other people in the horrors of the Holocaust.

Following the war, eugenics was discredited because of these atrocities.

MacDonald then comments on the resurgence of the eugenics movement. He writes:

However, in recent years, a new eugenics movement has begun to appear with the opportunity provided by scientific advancement to alter the genetic make-up of human beings and to “breed out” disability and genetic conditions. The re-emergence of the idea that some lives are not worth living is being applied to vulnerable people who are deemed to have become a burden on society.

Worryingly this view has been given oxygen by former BBC Today presenter John Humphys, writing in the Daily Mail: “I know I’m among the vulnerable group for coronavirus, but just don’t believe all lives are equal.”

Similarly, Max Hastings, speaking on BBC World at One, stated that the elderly are “becoming a dead weight on the NHS”. Such thinking and sentiments are troubling.

MacDonald continues by commenting on actions by doctors during the Covid-19 crisis:

Already stories are beginning to emerge of GPs contacting their patients with existing health conditions to ask whether they would want a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order to be included in their notes.

This might simply reflect a desire to ensure that if one of their patients with another serious medical condition also develops Covid-19, or gets admitted to hospital for another reason, there is no lack of clarity over the patient’s wishes. But whatever the reason, we must be cautious when extending clinical judgements to the subjective measure of quality of life.

We have already heard reports of DNR notices being placed on groups of vulnerable patients, such as those in care homes, in a carte blanche manner and without any consultation with the patients involved or their wider families. This has now been forbidden by the health secretary, and care homes have been instructed to rip up existing agreements. But concerns remain about whether vulnerable people will receive life saving treatment should they be admitted to hospital with Covid-19, and whether they will even be admitted in the first place.

Although such examples do not constitute euthanasia or assisting suicide because doctors are not actively hastening the end of patients’ lives, there is a danger that the same eugenicist thinking can feature.

He then states that disability rights leaders such as Baroness Jane Campbell or Baroness Tanni Grey Thompson have expressed concerns that disabled people are increasingly being seen as “expendable”. MacDonald concludes his article by restating:

While we live through these unprecedented times, inevitably, very difficult decisions have to be taken about who to treat in a context of grossly overstretched healthcare resources. But we must be aware of the danger of changing medicine in a way which would be detrimental to the most vulnerable in society.

In responding to the Covid-19 virus, we must ensure no back door is left open to the dangerous philosophy of eugenics.

Thank you Dr MacDonald

Stop Assisted Suicide by Telehealth

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

*Sign the petition: Healthcare regulations must not permit assisted suicide approvals by telehealth (Link).

Recently, I received an email from an assisted suicide lobby group explaining how assisted suicide can be done during the Covid-19 crisis. The text of the email was based on  interviews with several leading death lobby activists.

This email indicates that assisted suicide by tele-health/tele-medicine is being implemented in US states that have legalized assisted suicide.

On March 20, 2020 EPC reported that the assisted suicide lobby was using the Covid-19 crisis to promote approving assisted suicide by telehealth.

This is not a new idea. In 2019 the New Mexico assisted suicide bill included a telehealth provision. Also the recent bill to expand assisted suicide in Hawaii included a telehealth provision.

On March 26, 2020 EPC reported that a group of  death doctors stated that during the Covid-19 crisis "aid-in-dying" needed to be approved by telehealth. On that same day, an assisted suicide lobby group thanked Congressional leaders for expanding access to telehealth during the Coronavirus crisis.

I understand the need to expand telehealth services during the Covid-19 crisis but assisted suicide is not medical treatment.

Approving assisted suicide by telehealth means that a person with difficult health issues who feels like a burden on others, or is experiencing depression or existential distress, could be assessed, approved and prescribed a lethal drug cocktail for assisted suicide by telehealth without ever being examined by a physician.

Considering the occurances of medical misdiagnosis, is it reasonable to give physicians the right to prescribe a lethal drug cocktail without examining the patient first?

In April 2013, Pietro D’Amico, a 62-year-old magistrate from Calabria Italy, died by assisted suicide at a Swiss assisted suicide clinic. His autopsy revealed that he had been a victim of a medical misdiagnosis.

It is unlikely that the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) realized that the assisted suicide lobby would take advantage of the Covid-19 crisis to begin approvals of assisted suicide by telehealth.

I urge you to contact Alex M Azar II, the HHS Secretary at: Secretary@HHS.gov or call his office at: 202-690-7000

Tell Secretary Azar to Stop Assisted Suicide by Telehealth. Assisted suicide is not medical treatment. Regulations must not permit approvals of assisted suicide by telehealth.

*Sign the petition: Healthcare regulations must not permit assisted suicide approvals by telehealth (Link).

Covid-19 crisis demonstrates the need for euthanasia and assisted suicide is abstract rather than practical.

Euthanasia is not an essential service.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Kevin Yuill

Kevin Yuill, the author of the book Assisted Suicide: The Liberal, Humanist Case Against Legalisation, and Theo Boer, a former member of a Netherlands Regional Euthanasia Review Committee (2005 - 14) collaborated to write the article: What Covid-19 has revealed about euthanasia, that was published by Spiked on April 14, 2020.

The authors begin the article by commenting on Covid-19 and healthcare:

There has not been, in living memory, more focus on healthcare, the vital role of doctors, the sacrifices made by nurses, and the wonderful efforts of everyone involved in the sector. Amid the coronavirus crisis, daily heroism, the scale of human loss, and the awful scenes in hospitals underline what is important – and what is not.

Theo Boer

They authors comment on euthanasia and Covid-19 in the Netherlands:

It will surprise some that in the Netherlands, the only dedicated clinic providing euthanasia and assisted suicide has closed. Euthanasia Expertise Centre (formerly known as End of Life Clinic) has suspended all euthanasia procedures. The clinic’s website says that existing procedures have been put on hold and new patients are no longer admitted. The centre – which in 2019 alone ended the lives of 898 patients suffering from cancers, psychiatric problems, early on-set dementia, and accumulated age-related complaints – is willing to make an exception only for those expected to die soon and those who may soon lose their capacity for decision-making.

They comment on euthanasia and Covid-19 in Belgium:

Similarly, in Belgium, Jacqueline Herremans, a member of the federal commission reviewing euthanasia, has noted that there are few resources and even fewer doctors available for euthanasia at the moment: ‘The most important thing right now is that we fight the coronavirus.’

They then comment on euthanasia and Covid-19 in Canada:

In Canada, authorities are also shutting down services. For a process that requires two different medical assessments and witnesses, the lives involved are not worth the risk. According to the Globe and Mail, two places in Ontario, where euthanasia and assisted suicide have been legal since 2016, have stopped providing medical assistance in dying (MAID) because of the coronavirus pandemic (one has since resumed for existing patients and those whose deaths are imminent).

In Ontario, only Hamilton and Ottawa are known to have decided that euthanasia is not an essential service. 

The authors point out that the Netherlands euthanasia clinic state that euthanasia is not a priority during the Covid-19 crisis. The statement from the euthanasia clinic follows an opposite statement last year where Steven Pleiter, the director of the clinic said:

‘If the situation is unbearable and there is no prospect of improvement, and euthanasia is an option, it would be almost unethical [of a doctor] not to help that person’

The authors say that palliative care institutions have not shut-down during the Covid-19 pandemic.

So what has the Covid-19 pandemic taught us about euthanasia? The authors state:

What the Covid-19 crisis has demonstrated is that the need for euthanasia and assisted suicide is abstract rather than practical. In the Netherlands in the 1980s, assisted dying started out as the ultimate solution to impending horrible deaths. In present times, with a high level of care for the dying available in most countries with good healthcare, assisted dying is not about actual deaths, but about deaths that people fear. The reality is that most people die peaceful deaths. But many fear loss of control and find the prospect of others caring for them terrifying. 

Covid-19 brings the reality of death, the necessity of caring for others and being cared for by others, into our living rooms, making the preciousness of all lives and the tragedy of all deaths real. We see the humanity of the elderly and frail; no longer are they burdens to be dispatched from this world, but victims of horrifying disease that all are invested in fighting.

The authors conclude by stating:

"Perhaps, though, we can remember this time when we made huge sacrifices to preserve every life, no matter how frail and vulnerable. We can remember this time when euthanasia no longer seemed necessary."

Thank you Kevin and Theo. Euthanasia is not an essential service and it is not healthcare.

Pressured to die by assisted death.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Candice Lewis

Candice Lewis recently died a natural death.

In August 2016, Candice Lewis, who was 25, while receiving treatment at the hospital was pressured by a doctor to "request" an assisted death.

No one questions that Candice was very sick at the time, but as Candice's mother told CBC news, the doctor pressured her to request physician-assisted death. The article stated:

"His words were 'assisted suicide death was legal in Canada,'" she told CBC. "I was shocked, and said, 'Well, I'm not really interested,' and he told me I was being selfish."

Kevin Dunn interviewed Candice and her mother Sheila for the Fatal Flaws film. (Link to purchase Fatal Flaws) During the interview Sheila said:

Not once did she say to them, "I want to end my life." The doctor came in the next day after he told me about assisted suicide, stuck his face down in Candice's and said, "Do you know how sick you are?" When I got his eye contact we went out in the hallway and I told him, "Don't you ever pull something like that again."

How many situations, similar to Candice Lewis have occurred in Canada and either died by lethal injection or were so shocked by the experience of being pressured that they will not speak about it?

I have received emails and calls about people being pressured to die by MAiD. Recently I received this email from a care-giver stating:

Several weeks ago, in the space of a two week time period, I was made aware of four instances in which nursing staff [in hospitals] ... seemed to be initiating discussion of MAiD with family/friends, and, in the last instance, a patient, without any apparent prior reference to MAiD on the part of the patient.

During my Vancouver Island speaking tour, a man told a group how his mother, who required dialysis, was urged by healthcare "professionals" to ask for MAiD (euthanasia). He said that if he had not spoken to his mother, she may have died by euthanasia.

At the next talk a woman came up afterwards and shared that her father, who had significant health issues, was urged by healthcare "professionals" on several occasions to consider MAiD (euthanasia).

It appears that many doctors and nurses are urging patients to ask for MAiD.

This type of pressure, at the most vulnerable time in a person's life, will lead some people, who would never have otherwise considered death by lethal injection, an option. In fact, it is likely that many people have died by euthanasia after being urged by a doctor or a nurse to do so.

If you have a story or a concern, please share it. Knowledge and awareness will help others to resist euthanasia when they are pressured.

I urge you to be involved in the lives of those who you know and care for. When someone is pressured by a doctor or nurse to ask for an assisted death, you can make a difference in their lives by saying - NO, I care for you, I will not abandon you. 

Euthanasia is not the answer.