Pro-life man convinced by nurse to seek euthanasia

Dear Friends:

As the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition I receive many emails and phone calls from people who are wanting to prevent a euthanasia death of a family member or friend. 

I was a shocked when I received a call from the wife of a former pro-life leader who had asked for euthanasia.

Euthanasia became legal in Canada in June 2016 and in March 2021 Canada’s federal government expanded the euthanasia law when it passed Bill C-7.

The man that I am referring to was a pro-life activist in the 1990's.

His wife told me that he was nearing death and being cared for in Catholic hospice facility, but that he had asked to die by lethal injection and he had been approved. Since he was being cared for in a Catholic facility and they would not participate in the act, they were planning to transfer him.

After a long conversation and hopefully some helpful advice to avert his homicide death, this situation caused me to further think about the nature of the human person and how legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide clearly threatens the lives of everyone.

His wife, with my help, protected him from euthanasia.

After his natural death, I received a call from his wife thanking me for helping her save her husband from euthanasia. 

She told me that she found out, after his death, that the day before her husband asked to be killed by euthanasia, that a nurse at the facility, spoke to her husband for several hours in the middle of the night and convinced him to ask for (MAiD). She told his wife, after his death, that MAiD was his right and she spent several hours assuring him that euthanasia was an option for him. He had not brought up the idea of death by lethal injection before that conversion.

When thinking about the ethics concerning what the nurse had done, clearly she did not simply inform him of his legal options but she convinced him, while he was partially sedated, to accept death by lethal injection an act that he would never even have considered when he was in his normal state of mind. 

The nurse not only acted inappropriately but she proved how a human person can be influenced at a vulnerable time of their life.

Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide threatens all of our lives. 

Many people will be influenced by a nurse or a doctor who claims to be informing us of your legal rights, when in fact they are influencing us at a vulnerable time of life to consider (MAiD) euthanasia.

You need to be protected at the most vulnerable time of your life. You need a Power of Attorney for Percsonal Care legal document that states your beliefs concerning medical treatment and also your states your opposition to death by euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Protect your life by purchasing the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition today (Link).

Become a member of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition  (Link).

Alex Schadenberg

Suicide, assisted suicide, disability rights and FEN.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Allison Wallis, wrote an indepth essay that was published by Aljazeera on August 8 titled: Death doulas and end-of-life rights: The debate on assisted dying.

I don't agree with much of Wallis's essay but she uncovers significant information related to the Final Exit Network (FEN). Wallis is from Hawaii where assisted suicide has been legal for several years.

Wallis begins by explaining her story that led to her interest in the issue she writes:

A few years ago, I spent a lot of time in bed. I had developed holes in my dura – the thick covering that surrounds the spine and brain – that were leaking cerebrospinal fluid. Every time I would sit up, I would get hit by a wave of dizziness and nausea, and the pain in my head from low brain pressure would become unbearable. Many times, I would faint, passing out on the floor or in bed.
...
Every single day, I felt like a burden. The pain never relented. Many of those days, I wanted to die.

My life is exponentially better now. I am no longer suicidal and have no remaining ideation. But I do still think a lot about the ethics of suicide – and especially of medical aid in dying (MAID), a practice legal in a small but growing number of states which allows a doctor to write a fatal prescription for a sick person who feels sure they want to die.

Wallis writes that she lives with chronic pain and supports the concept that someone should be able to end their life when they are dying or life becomes difficult. She states:

I decided I wanted to know what it would mean to choose to die with the help of my doctor under Hawaii’s MAID law: the Our Care, Our Choices Act. I spoke to death doulas, lobbyists and doctors, and one man who operates in the margins of the law by helping people learn how to end their lives.

Wallis examines opposition to assisted dying from the disability perspective.

This opposition means they also oppose limited laws like the Our Care, Our Choice Act in Hawaii, which allows terminal, mentally competent residents with less than six months to live the right to request medication that will end their life. It is the beginning of a slippery slope, activists say. Many disabled people have been told that they were terminal, but are still alive decades later. In January in Canada, a 35-year-old father named Chris Gladders died with medical assistance in a filthy room in a nursing home that investigators found to be poorly managed and neglectful. Disability rights advocates held the case up as an example of exactly what they were worried about. If he had been able to live at home, with his family and skilled care, would he still be alive today?...

The National Council on Disability (NCID) strongly opposes MAID and has produced a 70-page document (PDF) that outlines its concerns. These include insurance companies that have refused to pay for possibly life-saving care, but that did offer to pay for much less expensive lethal drugs. The Council also argues that medical science is not perfect and that disabled people are sometimes called terminal when they are not. People considering MAID may be living with demoralisation, caused by the internalised feelings that they are an expense or a burden to loved ones. Most physicians are not trained in recognising or addressing demoralisation in their disabled patients. Instead, these physicians may reinforce those feelings by conflating disability with a terminal illness or poor quality of life.

Wallis explains how disability advocates want better care not death.

In recent years, in response to the opioid epidemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been cracking down on the prescription of pain medication – even though the treatment of pain is considered a civil right. As a result, it is easier for some people who live with severe pain to obtain deadly MAID drugs than to obtain opioids – the only type of medication that may help with their pain. What disabled people need instead of aid-in-dying laws, the Council suggests, is adequate long-term care. Palliative care and pain medication that is fully funded and easily accessible. Home health aides that are affordable or paid by insurance. Instead of being encouraged to die, we need the ability, through support, to live the best life possible.

Wallis then interviewes Brian Rudder from the Final Exit Network (FEN):

Brian Ruder believes that a person should have a civil right to end their life on their own terms. He is with the Final Exit Network, a nationwide organisation that provides training for people who want to end their life. Clients do not need to be terminal. To request FEN’s services, you must write a letter and send in your medical records to be reviewed by a board of doctors. ...

When I called Brian to talk about it, he insisted that FEN does not assist or encourage suicide, but only provides information about various possible methods. I found it hard, however, to understand how a volunteer flying out to Hawaii to give a lesson about dying to someone who may be suicidal is not encouraging the act. He also said that FEN does not accept people with mental illness. Not yet, anyway. And he stressed that the group turns away applicants whose families are not on board, as well as people with severe medical issues who do not think they are within a year of wanting to die. These people are given a reference to a suicide how-to book. They are not given a referral for mental health care.

One of the reasons I like Wallis's article is that she uncovers some of the FEN practises. FEN is an assisted suicide group that assists in the deaths of people who don't qualify for death under the state assisted suicide laws or assists suicides in states where it is illegal. FEN promotes a "suicide how-to book" for people when they will not assist the death. In other words they will advocate for suicide in cases when they won't approve the suicide.

Wallis asks Brian whether FEN would have helped her to die when she was at her low time. He told her:

“Maybe,” Brian said. The medical board would have had to review my letter and medical records. While FEN does not approve people with solely mental health issues, they do not see depression as a barrier to approving people who also have serious health problems. He seemed to dance around my question a bit, but I got the impression that, if I had asked for FEN’s help to die, I probably would have been accepted.

Brian also told Wallis how FEN supports assisting a suicide for people who think their life is complete (completed life). Wallis responds by writing:

Brian seemed like a nice guy. Like he would be a good grandfather. My disabled friends would call him a serial killer. I left the interview feeling very uneasy. That feeling has not gone away.

Wallis then writes about death doulas, an "ideal" assisted suicide death and her memories of her grandmother's natural death. She ends her essay by stating that she supports disability organizations opposition to assisted suicide but she also supports the option of assisted suicide. Wallis is clearly inconsistent and divided.

I appreciate how Wallis shows how FEN is an extremist group. They say that they don't assist suicides but they assist in every way possible in suicide. Wallis shows how FEN will not approve everyone for assistance in suicide but when they do not approve they assist by providing "how to" suicide information. Finally she shows how FEN leaders support the concept of "completed" life and how they are willing to assist the suicides of people who have suicidal ideation.

I hope that Wallis will notice the inconsistency in the assisted suicide ideology, an ideology that enables other people to approve and be involved with causing death. These are dangerous concepts for people living in a difficult time of their life.

It is far more consistent to believe that nobody in society has the legal right to be involved with killing another person. True equality recognaized the value of every human life.

Ximena's Butterfly Foundation: Working to ban "Substance X"

"I can't live like this but I don't want to die either"

Randy Knol with his wife.

Article by: Randy Knol, the father of Ximena, is the founder and chairman of Ximena’s Butterfly Foundation

The title is in one sentence of what suicide is about, it’s not a wish to die it’s an escape from the life you have at that moment. It’s the biggest misconception about suicide that people think death was a choice made by the person that died, it was not.

That’s the reason why my wife and I started the Ximena’s Butterfly Foundation, for prevention of suicide by young people and young adults. 

Ximena was our daughter, our love and joy. She escaped the life she was living on February 23rd, 2018. We named the foundation after her. The butterfly was because just before her escape she wrote as a WhatsApp status “When the caterpillar thought the world ended, it became a butterfly”. 

Ximena Knol

The false promise of Substance X

Ximena used the “Substance X” as promoted by a Dutch radical group that came in the news 6 months prior to her death. On a television news show FWC came out in a poorly acted report that it was a substance that was painless, fast and certain. They made the idea of death so easy, however the promise they made was a big lie, it’s one of the most inhumane ways of ending your life. With “substance X” death is in fact inhumane. Science cases report about an agonizing five-day struggle to die, where no antidote is available.

More articles about "Substance X" (Link).

A toxic cocktail

The combination of the substance being a secret, the false promise of a painless and sure death combined with the attention from the media made it, as Doctor Boudewijn Chabot wrote in his book, a toxic cocktail. As a leading voluntary end of life promotor Doctor Chabot loudly protested the false claim made by the FWC. In the latest release of his book about voluntary life ending he wrote two full chapters as a warning not to use “substance X”. With our permission he wrote the story of Ximena, our butterfly.

End of life terrorism

Three weeks after Ximena escaped her troubled life we warned against this substance through the media with a news article starting a wave of attention. We told our horrific story for the first time in a Late night talk show. I called the FWC radicals “end-of-life-terrorists”, which was apparently a good description because it made the headlines in many newspapers the next day. 

I literally said: “The FCW is so radical I call them end-of-life-terrorists, for them the goal sanctifies the means” They are so radical, they had the plan that after a six month membership you could acquire the substance, no consulting no questions asked.

If it’s yellow and curved it’s not an apple.

Despite all the secrecy, within an hour of its televised release, two names of what could be "Substance X" went viral. I explained it in the Late Night Show as: “If I explain it’s yellow and curved and needs peeling before you eat it, everybody understand it’s not an apple” Their description was so clear that the two substances went viral and began to be promoted as the substance. Two chemical compounds with an almost similar effect on the human body. Unfortunately Ximena found the names too, for 1 euro and 55 cent plus €9.95 p&p she bought 125 grams, sufficient to kill 24 persons.

It was very visible, Ximena laid in her bed as blue as jeans, we were only allowed to see her for a few minutes from a 2 meter distance. The prosecutor demanded a full autopsy, which hardly ever happens in The Netherlands after suicide. They were clearly looking for evidence regarding the FWC. Ximena seemed to be one of the first victims of Substance X.

Ximena was taken away, nobody informed us about anything, we got her back 3 days later. The coroner did an awful job, she wasn’t recognizable. Her face was swollen and dark, she was decomposing. Something must have gone wrong in the autopsy, we had seen her twice for 5 minutes since they couldn’t keep her outside the cooling. We had to say our goodbyes with a closed casket. Her brothers, sister, grandmother, other family and friends never saw Ximena.

The struggle to ban “Substance X”

After the funeral we started to get “substance X” banned. We needed to have the law changed making the substance forbidden to sell, only to be sold to companies that had a permit. In the meanwhile the prosecutor started an investigation against the FWC, big words, assisting suicide, encouraging suicide and naming it a criminal organization. As we say in Dutch “A lot of bleating, little wool” they never went further then a good talk with them and the promise that the FWC should not distribute the substance. However the FWC found their way around and where they say they don’t distribute it, they have an active role in people acquiring the substance.

A month after Ximena died we reached an agreement with resellers and manufacturers not to sell to people and companies that had no industrial use for the substances. However we carried on to get a ban by law. We had a meeting with the Ministry of health, without any result, they would look into the possibilities. More then a year later the minister of health proudly send out a statement to the press that after long negotiations they agreed in a "covenant" with the chemical industry and suppliers that they wouldn’t sell to private persons. He was showing off with what we had already established a year earlier. After a television interview we said that this was a bit late and the only way to stop is to make it illegal by law to sell and posses it. We were invited for a meeting with the Minister of health in person, our main question was “why is there no law to ban these substances” the shocking answer was, well more a lame excuse IMHO: “if we make a law then we have to name the articles in the text”. We were stunned, under which stone was our government living, if you search on google you get tens of thousands of hits naming the substance. I asked him if he really thinks that if someone wants to die, that the person will look into laws to find a way?

A covenant doesn’t work

There are still victims of the substance, the Dutch Poison Information Centre received 51 requests for info in 2020, keep in mind this is the tip of an iceberg. Many physicians know that there is no antidote for the substance. Most victims are found deceased, how many people died of the substance? 50, 100, 500 who knows we can’t get the figures. How many older people take the substance as a means to end their life as a "completed life" and how many doctors register the death as a natural cause.

The covenant obviously didn't work. On July 23rd the police arrested a 28 years old man from Eindhoven who is suspected to have sold the substance to hundreds of people with 6 confirmed deaths. He also sold a regulated anti-vomit-medicine that can only be given by doctors and he used the profits for his living costs without reporting it as an income for taxes. This thug, sorry I have no other name, is charged with assisting a suicide, trade in regulated medication and money laundering. His arrest and custody was first extended with 14 days and yesterday he got a 30 day extension for his custody. The total custody can be extended to 90 days after which he has to be brought to court, this is usually a Pro Forma hearing in which a trial date can be set.

With the arrest and custody of this “suspect” the substance has not been banned. Our foundation has located more resellers and gave this information to the prosecutor General office. We had three members of parliament ask questions about the substance and have urged for a ban. Fortunately these MP’s are also bringing the matter to the attention of the European Parliament. It will all take time but the main concern is how many lives will be lost before the ban happens.

The “struggle” has yet just begun”

Our foundation, Ximena’s butterfly, (www.ximenavlinder.nl) has been contacted by 8 suicide survivors that lost dear ones from “substance X”. We act as spokespersons for some of them and we will continue the fight to ban this substance.

We pay all costs from our private money and through donations from concerned people. Please help us in this fight by donating through our website: https://ximenavlinder.nl/doneer/

Fraser Health Authority (British Columbia) reduces Hospice Palliative Care Benefit and promotes euthanasia

The following article was sent to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition by a palliative care patient advisor who is concerned about the Fraser Health Authority criteria for palliative care.

The Fraser Health Authority (FHA) is the British Columbia regional authority that defunded the Delta Hospice Society for refusing to participate in (MAiD) euthanasia. This article uncovers the discrepancy between the BC Hospice Palliative Care benefit and the FHA residence admission criteria. 

The FHA appears to consider euthanasia as more important than palliative care. Here is the article.

---

The Fraser Health Authority (FHA) admitted that there is a discrepancy between information posted on the website regarding the admission criteria to hospice and the approved hospice residence admission. To date a partial list of the eligiblity criteria is posted on the FHA webpage. Although, the FHA CEO was asked by a patient partner when would the webpage reflect the approved eligiblity for hospice residence admission, the CEO refused to provide an answer.

​On May 29, 2021, a patient advisor e-mailed the Professional Practice Consultant of the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) in preparation for the What Matters To You day on June 9. This was the message of the advisor to the consultant:

Would you be able to provide a rationale why Fraser Health reduced the life expectancy admission criteria from 6 months to less than 3 months as eligibility for admission to Fraser Health Authority Hospice Residence?

I am just concerned because patients should have access to the benefits longer than 3 months, but FHA is admitting those with life expectancy of less than 3 months?

I believe timely access (in reference to the BC Palliative Care Benefit Program life expectancy criteria) to palliative care is what matters most to those patients and families who need the service

See files from my notes and the screenshots from the source.

On June 4, 2021, the FHA Professional Practice Consultant replied to the advisor:

Thanks so much for your question. I reached out to the Fraser Health Palliative Care team to ask about the discrepancy and as it turns out they need to update the Fraser Health website to reflect the attached document. As you can see, the admission criteria actually does match the BC Palliative Care Benefit Program.

Thanks for bringing this to their attention; you have such great attention to detail.

The attached document mentioned in the message shows that the eligiblity criteria was approved since December 20, 2019 but the approved criteria was not made available to the public until a partial list was posted in June.

On June 10, 2021, the webpage on Fraser Health Hospice admission appears to be a 404 page or “Page not found”. The patient advisor questioned the Fraser Health CEO and copying the BC Premier and the BC Ministry of Health. The Premier and the Minister of Health and CEO viewed the e-mail but did not reply to the patient advisor.

On June 14, 2021, the patient advisor sent this e-mail message of concern to the Professional Practice Consultant:

Thank you very much for reaching out to the FHA Palliative Care Team to ask about the discrepancy between the BC Palliative Care Benefit and the Hospice

Residence Admission posted on FHA Website. Since December 2019, it was only today that the information on the web was updated. Base the previous e-mail, the Palliative Care Team acknowledges that the web needs to be updated to reflect the document with the approved Hospice Residence Admission Criteria . Although an update was done as of today, it is not yet reflective of what was approved.

I am curious of what is the process of FHA when updating webpages for public information? Who approves the information to be posted? I am concern that partial information posted in comparison to what was approved is not consistent to messaging. Patients and family members need to know what was approved. Both patients and health care providers should have the same information.

In my previous e-mail I have notified the Patient Engagement office through the department's email address that instead of updating the website it appeared to be an page with 404 message on June 10, 2021.

To date the webpage with the hospice residence admission is updated with a partial list of what was approved.

As of August 4, 2021, here is the Fraser Health Authority hospice residence admission criteria:

In an effort that patient advisors should be acknowledged for their effort to improve the quality of the delivery of health care system, the Fraser Health Chief Nursing Executive who also leads the Patient Engagement activities of the Fraser Health Authority terminated the patient advisor from the volunteer patient engagement. The reason provided by the executive is that advisor is a risk to the health authority. The termination happened after sending the e-mail of concern of partial list posted for the public.

Although the advisor was unfairly removed and banned from all volunteer activities within the health authority, the patient advisor hopes that the Fraser Health will be transparent to the public and post to their website the full list of the eligibility for hospice residence admission and provide the meaning of Medical Orders of Scope of Treatment (MOST) M1 or M2 to the public.

· M1 means Supportive care, symptom management & comfort measures. Allow natural death.

Transfer to higher level of care only if patient's comfort needs not met in current location.

· M2 means Medical treatments available within location of care. Current Location:

Transfer to higher level of care only if patient's comfort needs not met in current location

People who have less than six months to live should be given the dignity to live the last moments of their life with their families and should be given the right to access the hospice beds when they are eligible to be admitted and not to delay the admission to the last 3 months of their life. M1 should have been the protection of those in the hospice to be allowed natural death. And M2 should have been considered that medical treatments in the hospice is intended for palliation and those wishing for MaiD, transfer is allowed as the formal transfer could be facilitated within 30 days after a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner completes the form for the reason of transfers such as facility do not allow provision of MaiD in the facility or any reasons that requires an effective transfer.

The question now is do Fraser Health go through the process of public engagement, legal and ethical review for all their corporate policy to ensure no discrepancy with any legislations?

Note: The name of the patient advisor is withheld because of an active complaint with the BC Ombudsperson regarding unfair removal of patient advisors in Fraser Health Authority following the concern about discrepancy between the BC Palliative Care Benefit and the FHA Hospice Residence Admission.

Dutch suicide group is dangerous and the media is irresponsible.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A week I reported that a man (known as Alex S) was arrested for assisting multiple suicides in Eindhoven Netherlands. I wrote that the NL Times reported that the Eindhoven man sold suicide powder to at least 6 people who died.

Ximena Knol died by suicide powder

I also published an article about Randy Knol, the father of Ximena, the 19-year-old who died in February 2018 by ingesting the suicide powder known as "Substance X." I explained that for the past three years Randy has been working to get the lethal powder banned.

After publishing the article, Randy I had the opportunity to communicate online. Randy explained how the group - Cooperative Last Will - has been promoting the suicide powder and how websites are selling the suicide powder for profit.

If that doesn't concern you, consider a person living with mental illness and suicidal ideation or a 19-year-old temporarily struggling with life.

Randy then sent me several links to websites that provide the suicide powder. These websites lie about its intended use to avoid problems with selling the suicide powder.

The Dutch media is also irresponsible. 

An article published by Eindhoven news not only reports on the arrest of (Alex S) but also promotes the group Cooperative Last Will.

Last week Randy told RTL news that:

“We urge anyone who has purchased this drug not to use it. Its use is inhumane, slow and painful. Please take it to a pharmacy for destruction,” warns Randy.

He is calling for a ban. “We’ve done a lot of research on the drug on behalf of the foundation, and it’s horrific.”

Randy's goal is to protect others from a death, similar to Ximena's. You can learn more about Randy's campaign to ban "Substance X" (Link) and to donate to the campaign (Link).