Council of Canadians with Disabilities Denounces Trudeau Government's Re-Introduction of Un-amended Bill C-7 on Medical Aid in Dying as “Head-in-the Sand Mentality” that Endangers the Lives of Canadians with Disabilities

Media Release

Winnipeg – October 5, 2020 – The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD), a national disability rights organization, is vehemently denouncing the Trudeau government’s re-introduction of Bill C-7, a bill which extends access to Medical Aid in Dying to people who are experiencing intolerable suffering as a result of illness or disability, but whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. The bill was first introduced in early February, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit Canada.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has clearly revealed the ableism that is rampant in Canada’s healthcare system, as well as in Canadian society as a whole.” says Dr. Heidi Janz, Chair of the CCD’s Ending-of-Life Ethics Committee. She explains that “Ableism can be defined as the discrimination and social prejudice against people with disabilities based on the belief that typical abilities are superior. Like racism and sexism, ableism classifies entire groups of people as ‘less than,’ and perpetuates harmful stereotypes, misconceptions, and generalizations about people with disabilities.”

“Over the past five months, we’ve seen not only the introduction of critical care triage protocols which identify the pre-existence of a disability as an exclusion criterion for critical care, in the event that rationing of resources, such as ventilators, becomes necessary due to overwhelming demand; we’ve also seen elderly and disabled people who fall ill being left to die in nursing homes and never sent for medical care in hospitals,” Janz explains. “At the same time, we’re hearing provinces like Alberta and Ontario threaten to severely cut—or even outright end—the income support programs that people with disabilities rely on to survive. All of this means that people with disabilities are more marginalized during these pandemic times than they have been at any other time in Canada’s history.”

“With such evidence of systemic discrimination against people with disabilities mounting daily, the Trudeau government’s decision to move forward with this bill without adding safeguards to prevent marginalized Canadians from being driven to seek assistance to die because they cannot get assistance to live is evidence of a head-in-the-sand mentality that endangers the lives of Canadians with disabilities,” Janz says.

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities is urgently calling on the Trudeau government to withdraw Bill C-7 and replace it with a new bill that strikes a more careful balance between autonomy rights and equality rights for people with disabilities. Such a Bill would need to follow the judicial directive in the Carter ruling, which called for “a carefully-designed system” that “imposes stringent limits” that are “scrupulously monitored and enforced.”

"The government seems committed to spending time, energy and resources to helping us die sooner. What we truly need are resources to live with dignity in the community. This means having income above the poverty line, access to community resources like home care and attendant services and access to quality palliative care -- should the need arise," said Tracy Odell, President of Citizens With Disabilities - Ontario and 2nd Vice-Chair of CCD.

"Canada should show its resolve to be a 'kinder and gentler' nation. We do this through active support of our human rights recognized by the United Nation Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities; not by expediting people's death -- especially when our so-called 'choice' for an early death arises from fear of loneliness, neglect and shortage of help to live with dignity at home."

-30-

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Dr. Heidi Janz
hjanz@ualberta.ca

* 

Communiqué de presse

LE CONSEIL DES CANADIENS AVEC DÉFICIENCES DÉNONCE LA REMISE EN VIGUEUR DU PROJET DE LOI C-7 NON MODIFIÉ SUR L’AIDE MÉDICALE À MOURIR: AVEC CETTE «POLITIQUE DE L’AUTRUCHE», LE GOUVERNEMENT TRUDEAU MET EN DANGER LA VIE DES CANADIENS EN SITUATION DE HANDICAP.

Winnipeg – 5 octobre 2020 – Le Conseil des Canadiens avec déficiences (CCD), organisation nationale de défense des droits des personnes handicapées, dénonce la remise en vigueur fédérale du projet de loi C-7, qui élargit l’accès de l’aide médicale à mourir aux personnes subissant d’intolérables souffrances suite à une maladie ou un handicap mais dont la mort n’est pas raisonnablement prévisible. Ce projet de loi est entré en vigueur au début février, avant que la pandémie de la COVID-19 ne frappe le Canada.

«La COVID-19 a nettement révélé le capacitisme endémique dans le système de soins de santé du Canada ainsi que dans la société canadienne en général, a déclaré la Dre Heidi Janz, présidente du Comité d’éthique en fin de vie du CCD. Le capacitisme, explique-t-elle, peut-être défini comme la discrimination et le préjudice social basés sur la supériorité soutenue des capacités typiques et exercés à l’égard des personnes handicapées. À l’instar du racisme et du sexisme, le capacitisme catégorise des groupes complets de personnes comme des «êtres inférieurs » et perpétue les dangereux stéréotypes, malentendus et généralisations appliqués aux personnes en situation de handicap.»

«Depuis les cinq derniers mois, nous avons vu apparaitre, en soins intensifs, des protocoles de triage stipulant que la préexistence d’une déficience serait considérée comme un critère d’exclusion au cas où une rationalisation des ressources, notamment les respirateurs, s’avèrerait nécessaire suite à une demande excessive. Nous avons également vu dans des centres de soins de longue durée, des personnes âgées et des personnes handicapées tomber malades, ne jamais être hospitalisées et être abandonnées jusqu’à la mort, a souligné Mme Janz. Et en même temps, nous apprenons que des provinces comme l’Alberta et l’Ontario menacent de couper – et voire même de supprimer carrément – des programmes de soutien du revenu dont dépendent les personnes handicapées pour survivre. Ce qui signifie que pendant cette pandémie, les personnes handicapées ont été plus marginalisées qu’à n’importe quelle époque de l’histoire du Canada.»

Devant cette preuve manifeste de la progression quotidienne de la discrimination systémique à l’égard des personnes en situation de handicap, la décision du gouvernement Trudeau de remettre la loi en vigueur sans ajouter des mesures de sauvegarde pour protéger les Canadiens marginalisés incapables d’obtenir le soutien requis, contre toute incitation vers l’aide à mourir, cette décision n’est qu’une politique de l’autruche, un aveuglement qui met en danger la vie des Canadiennes et des Canadiens en situation de handicap, a ajouté Mme Janz.»

Le Conseil des Canadiens avec déficiences prie instamment le gouvernement Trudeau d’abroger le projet de loi C-7 et de le remplacer par une loi instaurant un juste équilibre entre les droits à l’autonomie et les droits à l’égalité des personnes handicapées. Une telle loi se conformerait aux directives judiciaires stipulées dans le jugement Carter, à savoir «les risques doivent être réduits par un système soigneusement conçu imposant des limites strictes scrupuleusement surveillées et mises en application.»

«Le gouvernement semble vouloir consacrer son temps, son énergie et ses ressources à accélérer notre mort. Nous avons vraiment besoin de ressources pour vivre en toute dignité dans la communauté. Ce qui implique un revenu supérieur au seuil de la pauvreté, l’accès à des ressources communautaires comme les soins à domicile et les services d’auxiliaires et l’accès à des soins palliatifs de qualité, le cas échéant, a déclaré Tracy Odell, présidente de Citizens With Disabilities, Ontario et 2ème vice-présidente du CCD.»

«Le Canada doit afficher sa volonté d’être un pays « plus généreux et plus compatissant.» À cette fin, il devra activement appuyer nos droits reconnus par la Convention des Nations Unies relative aux droits des personnes handicapées, et non pas accélérer notre mort – surtout quand le soi-disant choix pour une mort prématurée est fondé sur la peur de la solitude, la négligence et le manque de soutien pour vivre dignement chez soi.»

-30-

POUR PLUS D’INFORMATIONS, CONTACTER :

Dre Heidi Janz
hjanz@ualberta.ca

Jack Sorenson RIP.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Katherine Sorenson

Taryn Grant reported on October 6 for CBC news that Jack Sorenson, Katherine's husband, died on Saturday, after the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decided that they had no role in reviewing euthanasia assessments, even if a euthanasia assessment was wrong.

Katherine believed that her husband of 48 years, who was approved for (MAiD) euthanasia even though he received conflicting assessments, is not dying, has questionable capacity, and is delusional about his medical condition.

Katherine's lawyer, Hugh Scher, sought an injunction to prevent the euthanasia death. The affidavit's state that Jack was not terminally ill, that he had questionable capacity to decide and he had "delusional" beliefs concerning his medical condition.

Grant interviewed Katherine for the CBC news article. Katherine stated:

She learned of his death when the funeral home called to tell her they had his body.

She said that after months of separation, his passing was not a shock and she was doing "pretty well, considering."

"I've had a wonderful life with Jack. There have been, as with any marriage, lots of varying opinions between the spouses and I thought we did a pretty good job of reconciling two pretty opposite views," she said, referring to their difference of religion. She is a practising Christian and he had been an atheist since his early adulthood.

When communicating with Katherine, it was sad to learn that she was not informed about her husband's death until after the funeral home received him.

Katherine told CBC news that Jack probably wouldn't like that she requested that donations go to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC), but EPC covered Katherine's legal expenses.

Donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (Link) by: 

Paypal (Link),
Donate by credit card by calling the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348, or
Send a cheque to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Box 25033, London ON., N6C 6A8.

More information on this story.

• Court of Appeal decides that the court has no role to review euthanasia (MAiD) assessments even when assessments differ (Link).
• Nova Scotia court decides that a man who is not dying and may be delusional can die by euthanasia (Link). 
• Woman goes to court to prevent her husband's assisted death (Link). 
• Nova Scotia woman seeks to prevent her husband's death by euthanasia (Link).

7 ways Belgium doesn’t follow its own euthanasia law

This article was published by Mercatornet on October 7, 2020

So-called “safeguards” are much more window dressing than providing any real protection.

Robert Clarke

By Robert Clarke

As the New Zealand euthanasia referendum approaches, voters could be helped by looking at the experience in other countries before making up their minds on this complex topic. At the end of July, Czechia became the latest country to reject the legalisation of euthanasia following similar rejections in Portugal and Finland. The opposition to the bill was largely based on concerns about the impact on the elderly and vulnerable. The final nail in the coffin was the Ministry of Social Affairs’ assessment that the bill did not contain enough safeguards against human error or violations of the law.

Wherever euthanasia is proposed, its advocates normally try to alleviate concerns by explaining that the system would be carefully controlled and tightly monitored — after all, we are talking about the deliberate ending of someone’s life. In evaluating what they say, we do not have to rely on speculation. Instead, we can look to the way these so-called “safeguards” function in countries that have already legalised these practices.

Tom Mortier's mother

I represent Tom Mortier, a Belgian university lecturer in his landmark case at the European Court of Human Rights. In 2012, his physically healthy 64-year-old mother was euthanised for what the doctor called ‘incurable depression’. After more than six years of research, and close analysis of responses provided by the Belgium government, it is clear that the reality falls a long way short of the promises made when the Belgian legislation was passed in 2002.

1. Myth: Euthanasia is possible only where there is suffering that cannot be alleviated

This was the standard built into the Belgian euthanasia law, but its interpretation has been watered down to the point that it provides no protection. In the case of Tom’s mother, doctors knew that she was struggling with depression, in part because of distance from her family. And yet when she refused to reach out to them, they quickly concluded her suffering was incurable. By this logic, almost anything could be considered incurable.

2. Myth: Euthanasia must be approved by two independent doctors

One of the supposed safeguards is that a doctor’s decision must be confirmed by one, or in some cases two other doctors. And yet in the case of Tom’s mother, the doctors involved were members of the same pro-euthanasia organisation. Hardly an “independent” verification, but it was considered acceptable by the Belgian authorities. Moreover, in the weeks before her euthanasia, Tom’s mother made a 2,500 EUR payment to this organisation, which presents yet another possible conflict.

3. Myth: The paperwork must be completed in a timely way

According to the Belgian law, the official euthanasia form must be filed with the government within four working days. In the case of Tom’s mother, the government admits it was received at least two months late. And yet, when the Commission reviewed this form, it found no cause for concern.

4. Myth: Cases must be reviewed by an independent euthanasia review commission

Not only did the Belgian Commission fail to see the obvious issues with the form in this case, it has reviewed over 12,000 cases and only referred one for investigation to the prosecutor. That statistic is less surprising in light of the fact that the Commission has been co-chaired since its creation by a leading euthanasia activist, who happens to be the doctor who euthanised Tom’s mother.

5. Myth: There is a robust system for dealing with conflicts of interest within the euthanasia commission

Given the Commission is packed with doctors who advocate for and practice euthanasia, you might imagine it has a robust system for dealing with potential conflicts of interest. Instead, the Belgian government has told the European Court of Human Rights that its procedure simply requires a doctor to sit silently in the room while the rest of the Commission discusses whether or not their case should be referred for criminal investigation. It is hard to imagine a more useless system of oversight.

6. Myth: The system is open to external scrutiny

To maintain public confidence, it is important that the decisions of the Commission be subject to scrutiny. In the case of Tom’s mother, the Commission — led by the doctor who carried out the euthanasia — simply refused to release the form to her next of kin. When Tom filed a complaint, the prosecutor initially “misplaced” it. After locating it, he took the next three years investigating it to then conclude with a single-sentence letter stating there was insufficient evidence to proceed. And yet we now know that even a quick glance at the euthanasia form should have raised cause for significant concern.

7. Myth: The patient must have made a settled and voluntary decision

Tom’s mother was suffering from a diagnosed psychiatric condition at the point at which her life was ended by lethal injection. To satisfy this apparent requirement, the doctor simply scribbled on the form that she had been “asking for it for years.” And yet this doctor had only met her months earlier; he specialises in cancer, not psychiatry; and appears only to have been approached because of his unquestioning approach to euthanasia.

To those who would say, “this is just one case.” It is. But that is one life, one mother, and one grandmother too many. She leaves behind children and grandchildren who are still — years on — dealing with the fallout. And the issues identified in this case go much deeper. Who knows how many other tragedies have been nodded through by this defective system? Moreover, once these laws are passed, there is no logical stopping point. Their advocates push for more and more. That has happened in Belgium — where child euthanasia was legalised in 2012 — and in the Netherlands — which is debating making euthanasia available for elderly people who are “tired of life”, after already expanding the law to include those suffering with dementia.

As we grapple with the implications of euthanasia and assisted suicide, we owe it to ourselves, and to the sick and the vulnerable, to weigh up not just the “best case scenario” that some paint, but to wrestle with the dark reality that is revealed when we really pull back the curtain on these practices. The sad conclusion is that these so-called “safeguards” are much more window dressing than providing any real protection. And the reality is that these laws are more likely to harm than to help the vulnerable.

Confused Kiwis line up to vote on a euthanasia law

This article was published by Mercatornet on October 7, 2020

Many think it’s all about saving people from being ‘kept alive’ against their will

By Carolyn Moynihan

Among the roadside billboards canvassing votes for political parties and their candidates in New Zealand’s triennial election on October 17 is one announcing starkly: “LETHAL DOSE with NO assessment for coercion required.” Below that it asks: “Is the End of Life Choice Act safe?”

It’s the kind of silly question you have to ask when parliament has already passed a law allowing euthanasia and all the rest of us can do is vote yes or no to it in a referendum. Deliberately killing yourself, let alone empowering doctors and nurses to kill you, can never be safe; but when the majority of legislators insist that it can, you have to fight them on their own ground.

VoteSafe, the campaigners behind the Lethal Dose billboard, have highlighted an issue that should give everyone with a sense of their own mortality pause.

In a society where elder abuse appears to be common, including by family members, the EoLC Act only requires that a doctor acting on a request for euthanasia “do their best to ensure the person exercises their wish free from pressure”.

Do their best? Isn’t that setting the bar rather low? There is no formal requirement for assessing coercion. How good will that “best” be when the doctor hardly knows you, let alone your family? How much time can he or she invest in the whole process?

Despite open-ended provisions like this, advocates of the law maintain that it’s watertight. According to one recent poll almost two-thirds of New Zealanders would vote yes in the referendum. Leading political contenders from left – Labour Prime Minister Jacinda (Be Kind) Ardern – and right – National leader Judith (Crusher) Collins – both voted for the EoLC Act.

They and other MPs had the advantage of debating it in parliament and having to listen to the opposition’s arguments. It’s a safe bet, though, that 90 percent of Kiwis have never read the legislation that sails under the flags of “choice” and “compassion”, and many will be voting on the basis of superficial – or occasionally more serious but subtly biased – media coverage.

In fact, research shows that the majority of people know next to nothing about the Act apart from the fact that it legalises euthanasia.

VoteSafe ran an online quiz about it that found almost half the 130,000 respondents thought it’s about turning off life support. Campaign manager Henoch Kloosterboer told Radio NZ:

“There’s a lot of confusion out there from people thinking that it’s around legal options which already exist such as turning off life support, do not resuscitate orders, the ability to refuse treatment, and palliative medication that may hasten death. But we’re not actually voting on that, we’re voting on the End of Life Choice Act.”

With voting only two weeks away, a poll by Curia Market Research found similar ignorance on this point, and on other aspects of the EOLC Act. Euthanasia Free NZ, the group that commissioned the poll reports:

Only 21% knew that this Act would not make it legal to have life support machines turned off, while 45% were unsure.

Only 18% were aware that terminally ill people who meet all the eligibility criteria, but also have depression or another mental illness, would indeed be allowed euthanasia under this Act.

Less than a third (28%) knew that this Act would make euthanasia available to terminally ill people even if they don’t have any physical pain. A third (33%) mistakenly thought that a person would need to have physical pain to qualify and 39% were unsure.

The End of Life Choice Act requires that a person experiences “unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner the person considers tolerable” but doesn’t require that this suffering be physical. A large Australian study found that 53% of people near death did not experience any pain.

About 41% of respondents assumed that the Act would require two witnesses when a person signs their euthanasia request in front of the doctor and about 40% were unsure. Only 18% knew that the Act does not actually include this safeguard. It only requires one “independent medical practitioner” in addition to the doctor assisting the suicide. In the assisted dying laws of Canada; Victoria and Western Australia; and nine US states, two people need to witness a person signing their written request in front of the first doctor.

How many voters know – what an article in the NZ Medical Journal points out – that the person requesting euthanasia doesn’t need to have had access to appropriate medical or palliative care? Or that there is no mandatory cooling off period after a request? Or that the individual, who might be a young adult, does not need to tell anyone about their decision?

In a year of plague and electioneering, Kiwis are being asked to vote on a piece of legislation that deals with the imponderables of “terminal Illness”, suffering and freedom at the end of life, as well as professional ethics.

Sadly, too many will tick a box that they think will save a loved one from dying in unrelieved pain, or suffering the indignity of lying helpless in a hospital bed connected to a respirator.

More articles on the New Zealand euthanasia referendum.

• New Zealand End of Life Choices Act would lead to many, not a few assisted deaths (Link).
• New Zealand End of Life Choices Act is not what it claims to be (Link).
• Claire Freeman was encouraged by the suicide outreach clinic to consider assisted suicide (Link).

EPC: Stop Bill C-7 from expanding Canada's euthanasia law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Please share this article with your friends (Link).

Sign the EPC petition: Reject euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link).

In September 2019, Justice Baudouin,  struck down the requirement in Canada's euthanasia law that a person's  natural death be reasonably foreseeable and the court gave the federal government six months to amend the law based on the  Truchon court decision. The government did not appeal the decision.

On February 24, the federal government introduced Bill C-7 in response to the Quebec Superior Court decision striking down the requirement in the law that a person’s "natural death must be reasonably foreseeable" before qualifying for death by lethal injection. Due to the COVID-19 crisis and then the prorogation of parliament, Bill C-7 was re-introduced on October 5, 2020.

What changes does Bill C-7 make to the law?

1. Bill C-7 removes the requirement in the law that a person’s natural death must be reasonably foreseeable to qualify for death by lethal injection. Therefore, people who are not terminally ill can die by euthanasia. The Quebec court decision only required this amendment to the law, but Bill C-7 went further.

2. Bill C-7 permits a doctor or nurse practitioner to lethally inject a person who is incapable of consenting, if that person was previously approved for assisted death. This contravenes the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision which stated that only competent people could die by euthanasia.

3. Bill C-7 waives the ten-day waiting period when a person is deemed to be “terminally ill.” A person could request death by euthanasia on a "bad day" and die the same day. Studies prove that the “will to live” fluctuates.

4. Bill C-7 creates a two track law. A person who is deemed to be terminally ill would have no waiting period while a person who is not terminally ill will have a 90 day waiting period before being killed by lethal injection.

If Bill C-7 is passed, a future court decision will strike down the 90 day waiting period for people whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable because, it would be argued that this provision represents an inequality in the law.

5. Bill C-7 falsely claims to prevent euthanasia for people with mental illness. The euthanasia law permits MAiD for people who are physically or psychologically suffering that is intolerable to the person and that cannot be relieved in a way that the person considers acceptable.” However, mental illness, which is not defined in the law, is considered a form of psychological suffering.

If the government wants to exclude euthanasia for mental illness, Bill C-7 would need to define psychological suffering in a manner that excludes euthanasia for mental illness.

Bill C-7 permits anyone who believes that their physical or psychological suffering to be intolerable to qualify for death by lethal injection, even if effective medical treatments for their condition exists, with a 90 day waiting period. (Link to Bill C-7)

The Canadian government must reject Bill C-7 and begin the promised 5-year review of the euthanasia law with an open view to what is actually happening rather than continuing to expand euthanasia, making Canada the most permissive euthanasia regime in the world.

Key talking points:

1. Bill C-7 must not permit MAiD when a person has become incompetent, even if the person was previously approved.
2. Bill C-7 must not eliminate the 10 day waiting period.
3. Bill C-7 must define psychological suffering to actually prevent euthanasia for mental illness alone.
4. Bill C-7 must define the phrase, natural death is reasonably foreseeable.

Sign the petition: Reject euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link).

Contact your member of parliament and state your opposition to Bill C-7 and any expansion to the already dangerous euthanasia regime in Canada.

Link to the list of Members of Parliament: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/search

More Articles on Bill C-7:

• Does Bill C-7 prevent euthanasia for mental illness? (Link).
• Canadians oppose euthanasia for mental illness and child euthanasia (Link).
• Canadian Bar Association. Bill C-7 will be challenged in the court (Link).

Be careful what you wish for when you legalize active killing

This article was published by the Irish Independent on October 5, 2020 and reprinted with permission of the author.

Professor Theo Boer

By Professor Theo Boer,
Former reviewer of euthanasia cases in the Netherlands.

As early as next week, Irish Members of Parliament could be casting a vote on the complicated and emotive issue of assisted suicide and euthanasia. After euthanasia was legalised in 2002, I supported the Dutch legislation and worked for the authorities reviewing euthanasia cases between 2005 and 2014. I was convinced that the Dutch had found the proper balance between compassion, respect for human life, and respect for individual liberties. Over the years, however, I became increasingly concerned about some developments. After an initial stabilisation we saw a dramatic increase in the numbers, which went from 2,000 in 2002 to 6,300 in 2019. In some urban districts in the Netherlands, between 12 and 14% of all deaths are the result of assisted dying. The outgoing director of the Euthanasia Expertise Centre – which provides assisted dying to almost 1,000 patients yearly – expects the euthanasia numbers to double again in the near future. We also saw differences in the way the legal criteria were interpreted. In the pioneering years of Dutch euthanasia, it was found almost exclusively in terminally ill mentally competent adults. After some decades, the practice extended to include those with chronic conditions, disabled people, those with psychiatric problems, and incompetent adults with an advance directive. Expansion is under debate for euthanasia in young children and for elderly persons without a medical diagnosis.

Understandably, Irish advocates of assisted dying argue for a more restricted law than is found in the low countries. Here is my prediction: any law that allows assisted dying will by some be experienced as an injustice and will be challenged in the courts. A year ago the Superior Court in Quebec ruled that the condition of a terminal illness in Canadian law is discriminatory and thus unconstitutional. Why only euthanasia for terminally ill patients, who already have access to an ever widening array of palliative care, whereas chronic patients may suffer more intensely and much longer? We can envisage the next steps: why exclude psychiatric patients, many of whom are suffering most heartbreakingly of all? Why only an assisted death for people suffering from a disease, and not for those suffering from meaninglessness, alienation, loneliness, from life itself? The paradox of legalising assisted dying is that what starts out as a welcome opportunity for those who love their self-determination, becomes an invitation to despair to others. I have seen literally hundreds of euthanasia reports in which the wish to shield one’s relatives from the agony of witnessing their suffering and carrying the burden of long-time care was one of the reasons, if not the essential reason, for asking for an assisted death. In a society where assisted dying is available, people are confronted with one of the most dehumanizing choices possible: do I want to live on, or do I want to effectuate my death?

The logic of many is that assisted dying will bring down the numbers of violent and traumatizing suicides. If true, this would be a powerful argument in favour of changing the law. But the Dutch statistics speak another language. Whereas the percentage of euthanasia of the total mortality went from 1.6% in 2007 to 4.2% in 2019, the suicide numbers went also up: from 8.3 suicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2007 to 10.5 in 2019, a 15% rise. If we would include the deaths through assisted suicide in patients considered to be at risk of committing suicide (psychiatric patients, people with chronic illnesses, dementia patients, elderly and lonely people), the total increase in self chosen deaths over the past decade would be closer to 50% than to 15%. Meanwhile in Germany, very similar to the Netherlands in terms of religion, economy and population, the suicide rates went down by 10%.

So as Members of Parliament start to look at this issue, the Netherlands must act as an alarm to what can happen. Look at the Netherlands and you may see Ireland in 2040. Like those currently arguing for a change in the law in Ireland, I once believed it was possible to regulate and restrict killing to terminally ill mentally competent adults with less than six months. (Paradoxically, I doubt whether my country would have legalised assisted dying if we had had the level of palliative care in 1994 that we have now.) Moreover, by taking this bold step I believed we could regulate suicide and death in this way that would curtail those all too familiar cases where someone ends their own life. I was wrong. If not even the most well-regulated and monitored system worldwide cannot guarantee that assisted dying remains a last resort, why would Ireland be more successful?

Theo Boer is Professor of Health Care Ethics at Groningen Theological University and Visiting Professor of Ethics at the University of Sunderland.

More articles by Theo Boer:

• Legalizing assisted dying can actually increase suicides (Link).
• Rushing toward death: Euthanasia in the Netherlands (Link).
• Dutch ethicist, "Assisted suicide: Don't go there" (Link).

 

Court of Appeal decides that the court has no role to review euthanasia (MAiD) assessments even when assessments differ.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

When Canada's parliament passed Bill C-14 legalizing euthanasia (MAiD) the legislation required two doctors or nurse practitioners to agree that a person qualified for death by lethal injection. As long as two euthanasia assessments approve death, it doesn't matter if several euthanasia assessments determine that a person doesn't qualify under the law.

Katherine's Sorenson believes that her husband of 48 years, who is approved for (MAiD) euthanasia even though he received conflicting assessments, is not dying, has questionable capacity, and is delusional about his medical condition.

Katherine's lawyer, Hugh Scher, sought an injunction to prevent the euthanasia death based on an assessment by a physician, an affidavit from a physician who has known her husband for years, and Katherine's affidavit. These affidavit's state that her husband is not terminally ill, that he has questionable capacity to decide and he has "delusional" beliefs concerning his medical condition.

Today, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decided that:

there is no role for courts in the review of MAiD eligibility assessments. ... Parliament considered, and rejected a role for judges in the pre-approval or review of MAiD eligibility assessments. Parliament made clear that the role rests with approved healthcare assessors.

In other words, if two doctors or nurse practitioners approve a death by lethal injection, that it doesn't matter that other doctors or nurse practitioners assessments disagree that the person qualifies to be killed under the law.

Further to that, if a euthanasia assessment is false, such as, if a MAiD assessor accepting a person's delusional beliefs about their medical condition, that there is no legal way to challenge the assessment, even if the challenger has been married to that person for 48 years.

Katherine Sorenson

Katherine stated:

I am committed to seeing this matter through for the benefit and protection of my husband of 48 years and for the benefit of others across Canada in the public interest, who may lack capacity and who otherwise will remain unprotected by a MAID law that clearly lacks adequate safeguards to protect those who are vulnerable.

Katherine's lawyer Hugh Scher noted that; 

Doctor shopping is a serious concern that must be addressed. Court or tribunal oversight are essential in those rare cases where there are multiple conflicting medical reports over the core issue of capacity which is an essential condition of eligibility for MAID.

Hugh Scher

Hugh Scher also noted that: 

The federal MAID law requires application in accord with provincial laws including those regarding consent and capacity.  Where capacity is at issue provincial consent and capacity laws across Canada call on courts or tribunals to resolve conflicts and disputes over capacity. 

It would be criminal to subject terminal treatment decisions under MAID to less protection than any other treatment decision. 

Toronto lawyer John Campion stated that: 

A more nuanced test for injunctions should be developed for end of life cases as the present tests of serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm and balance of convenience are inadequate and/or obviously determined in favour of the applicant (wife in this case) when the result is so final - death. The process should identify the single issue- in this case capacity - and design a process that brings the central concern into timely focus with evidence and argument as part of the balance of convenience... 

Lawyer Kate Naugler noted that: 

The dignity and autonomy of all Canadians is threatened where a person who lacks capacity is permitted to access MAID.

Katherine Sorenson and her legal team have not yet decided their next course of action.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition needs your help. EPC is paying the legal bills, but in turn, we need your financial support.

Donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (Link) by:

Paypal (Link),
Donate by credit card by calling the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348, or
Send a cheque to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Box 25033, London ON., N6C 6A8.

More information on this story.

• Nova Scotia court decides that a man who is not dying and may be delusional can die by euthanasia (Link). 
• Woman goes to court to prevent her husband's assisted death (Link). 
• Nova Scotia woman seeks to prevent her husband's death by euthanasia (Link).

Free webinar: An Update on Euthanasia Legislation in Canada - Thursday, October 8 at 7 pm (EST).

Now that Canada's parliament returned from prorogation, the question remains, what will we do about the bill to expand euthanasia in Canada? 

Euthanasia Bill C-7 has not changed. Our plan to defeat Bill C-7 will be covered in this webinar. 

Join the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition webinar: “An Update on euthanasia 'MAiD' legislation in Canada”

Register in advance for this webinar meeting using the following link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZ0oc-itpjkoGtMZbi2OQ8u60AuSjCvps-es  

Date: Thursday October 8, 2020

Time: 7:00 PM EST

The one-hour free webinar will feature: Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.