Tuesday, March 15, 2022

Oregon 2021 assisted suicide report. Ingestion status unknown with 106 lethal prescriptions.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Oregon 2021 assisted suicide report indicates that there were 238 reported assisted suicide deaths and 383 lethal prescriptions written in 2021.

The number of reported assisted suicide deaths was lower in 2021 but that may be misleading. The 2020 report stated that 245 people reportedly died by assisted suicide and the ingestion status was unknown for 80 people who received lethal drugs. The 2021 report stated that 259 people died by assisted suicide in 2020. Therefore 14 reports from 2020 were received late by the Oregon Health Authority.

Since the 2021 report states that there were 238 reported assisted suicide deaths and the ingestion status is unknown for 106 people who received lethal drugs. Similar to last year people who received lethal drugs died by assisted suicide but the report has not yet been submitted.

As with previous years, the report implies that the deaths were voluntary (self-administered), but the information in the report does not address that subject.

According to the 2021 Oregon assisted suicide report.

  • There were 238 reported assisted suicide deaths.
  • There were 383 lethal prescriptions written which is up from 373 in 2020.
  • 20 of the deaths, the lethal drugs were prescribed in previous years.
  • 2 people were referred for a psychiatric evaluation.
  • 1 person ingested the assisted suicide drugs but did not die.
  • 106 people received lethal prescriptions, but their "ingestion" status is unknown. When the ingestion status is unknown, the person may have died by assisted suicide but no report was received as of the time of publishing the report.
  • The time of death ranged from two minutes to 24 hours, but the data is only available when a health care provider was present.
  • 1 physicians was referred to the Oregon Medical Board for failure to comply with the law in 2021.
  • Anorexia is now listed as a condition for which assisted suicide is provided.
  • As in previous years, the three most frequently reported end-of-life concerns were loss of autonomy (93%), decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (92%), and loss of dignity (68%)

Oregon Governor Kate Brown, in July 2019, signing Bill SB 0579 into law. This bill, essentially, eliminates the 15 day assisted suicide waiting period. This expansion of assisted suicide allows the physician to waive the waiting period, and if the patient is depressed, the patient loses the opportunity to change their mind.
 
In 81 cases the physician waived the 15 day waiting period - in some cases the lethal poison was ingested the day after being first requested.

Assisted suicide activists have been experimenting for several years with lethal drug cocktails on people approved for assisted suicide. An article by Lisa Krieger published by the Medical Xpress on September 8, 2020 uncovers information about the lethal drug experiments:

A little-known secret, not publicized by advocates of aid-in-dying, was that while most deaths were speedy, others were very slow. Some patients lingered for six or nine hours; a few, more than three days. No one knew why, or what needed to change.

"The public thinks that you take a pill and you're done," said Dr. Gary Pasternak, chief medical officer of Mission Hospice in San Mateo. "But it's more complicated than that."

An article published in USA Today in February 2017 examined the experiments  being done on people to find a cheaper lethal drug cocktail for assisted suicide. The article states that assisted suicide researchers are promoting new generations of lethal drug cocktails. The results of the first two lethal drug cocktails were:

The (first) turned out to be too harsh, burning patients’ mouths and throats, causing some to scream in pain. The second drug mix, used 67 times, has led to deaths that stretched out hours in some patients — and up to 31 hours in one case.
The 2021 Oregon report emphasizes the use of the fourth generation of lethal drug cocktails show that the length of time to die has reduced but the problems with the use of these lethal drug cocktails continues.
 
 
In December 2017, Fabian Stahle, a Swedish researcher who is concerned about assisted suicide, communicated by email with a representative of the Oregon Health Authority.
Stahle confirmed that the definition of terminal illness, used by the Oregon Health Authority includes people who may become terminally ill if they refuse effective medical treatment.
The responses to Stahle from the Oregon Health Authority also confirmed that there is no effective oversight of the Oregon assisted suicide law.
 
The yearly Oregon DWD reports are based on data from the physicians who prescribe and carry-out the assisted suicide deaths and the data is not independently verified. 
 
Data concerning complications and length of time of death, etc., can only be verified when a healthcare provider is present at the death. In other words, we don't know if more complications were not reported or if abuse of the law has occurred or if all of the information from these reports is accurate.

Delta Hospice Society will hold virtual AGM on March 26, 2022


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Link to the original release)

ATTN: NEWS / CITY / HEALTH EDITORS / PALLIATIVE CARE

Delta Hospice Society fights for authentic palliative care at upcoming AGM 
Historic constitution vote to determine DHS’s right to reject pro-euthanasia legislation 
Delta, BC, March 7, 2022 — A leader in authentic palliative care for over 30 years, Delta Hospice Society (DHS) is holding its first-ever virtual Annual General Meeting (AGM) on Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 11 am (Pacific time). This historic meeting will determine the future of Delta Hospice Society. New bylaws and constitutional amendments will be introduced to protect Delta Hospice Society’s right to provide life-affirming palliative care and reject medical assistance in dying (MAiD) legislation within its private organization.

DHS defends membership rights on national stage
Over the past 26 months Delta Hospice Society has undergone more challenges than any other time over its 30-year history. As a small palliative-care organization committed to upholding life to its natural conclusion, DHS refused to provide euthanasia services at its former 10-bed hospice (Ladner, BC). Fraser Health Authority, on behalf of the provincial government, cancelled its $1.5 million per year contract and expropriated both DHS facilities built on Fraser Health Authority land. DHS is now on the national stage defending its right to provide only true palliative care services for families across Canada.

On Saturday, March 26, Delta Hospice Society members—in good standing as of the October 22, 2021, membership cut-off date—will vote on a revised constitution and bylaws that will ensure that Delta Hospice Society only provide palliative care that affirms life to its natural end. These proposed changes are entirely aligned with the official positions of the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association (CHPCA) and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians—that palliative care and Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) are “fundamentally different practices” because “MAiD is not part of the practice of hospice palliative care” (CHPCA and CSPCP ‘Joint Call to Action,’ 2019, https://www.chpca.ca/news/chpca-and-cspcp-joint-call-to-action/).
“All members are urged to attend and make Canada’s voice for life-affirming palliative care heard,” remarks Angelina Ireland, President, Delta Hospice Society. “The future of our Society, millions in assets, and our right as a private organization to practice authentic palliative care are at stake.”
DHS Advance Directives that affirm life 
To further promote authentic palliative care, Delta Hospice Society has recently created a ‘Do Not Euthanize’ (DNE) Advanced Directive and made it available to DHS’s nearly 14,000 members. This directive—a legal document—advances the rights of the holders against attempts to have their life terminated unnaturally through medical intervention.

Delta CARE Helpline 
Delta Hospice Society develops innovative resources to empower and support families and caregivers to help those who are bereaved to live meaningfully. To further our commitment to Canadian families, Delta Hospice Society has launched Delta CARE Helpline, a national voice for life-affirming, compassionate palliative care counselling. Delta CARE Helpline provides practical advice for individuals and families struggling with difficult end-of-life circumstances or bereavement. For the first time, callers from across Canada will be able to ask questions about palliative care, receive educational resources, enrol in facilitated peer support groups, or be referred to a professional counsellor for a no-charge 60-minute counselling session.

About Delta Hospice Society: 
Delta Hospice Society was incorporated in July 1991 in the province of British Columbia as a non-profit organization, governed by a volunteer board of directors, and dedicated to helping families and individuals experiencing life-threatening diagnoses, advanced illness, or bereavement to live a life of meaning, comfort, dignity, and hope. Delta Hospice Society is actively involved in promoting authentic, life-affirming palliative care locally, provincially, and nationally.

For more information, please contact: 
Angelina Ireland, 
President Delta Hospice Society 
1521 56 Street Delta, BC V4L 2A9 
1-800-232-1589

Monday, March 14, 2022

Concerned with the growth of the radical assisted suicide groups.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The assisted suicide lobby have a more extreme groups that are lobbying for suicide on demand. There are groups that provide ordering information for suicide substances and the "last will pill", there are groups that promote the concept of the "completed life" for people who are not sick but who have given up on living, and there are groups that sell books and provide information for suicide on demand.

Politically, the more extreme element within the assisted suicide lobby enable the "mainstream" groups to appear moderate.

All of these groups are intertwined with the euthanasia and assisted suicide lobby and the more radical groups see themselves as the natural outcome or final outcome for euthanasia and assisted suicide laws.

Why should you be concerned?

I have a close friend who is living with suicidal ideation. I am concerned that one day he will stumble onto one of the radical suicide promoting websites. The difficulty with suicidal ideation is that it doesn't go away. People resist the idea of suicide but once the thought that dying is better than living is firmly implanted into a person's thoughts, it seems to constantly return and it sometimes leads to a tragic end.

Ximena Knol
For instance, Randy Knol, the father of Ximena, who died by suicide when she was only 19 wrote the following about the death of his daughter:
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.

Three weeks after Ximena died 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.

...They are so radical, they had the plan that after a six month membership you could acquire the substance, no consulting no questions asked.
The Cooperatie Laatste Wil promotes "substance X" which is the suicide powder that caused Ximena's death.

Philip Nitschke has become a notorious and wealthy promoter of suicide through the sale of his books and devices. He has become famous with the creation of his "suicide pod" that is attractively designed to gain the attention of the media.

Nitshcke is known for his support for suicide on demand. He once told a reporter that even troubled teens should have access to the "peaceful pill". Nitschke believes that anyone should have access to an inexpensive suicide pill.

In America, a group called The Completed Life Initiative promotes suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia. This group believes that people should be given the means to end their life when they decide that their life is complete. They provide information and advice to people who would not "qualify" for assisted suicide but who are seeking suicide. The Completed Life podcasts interview people who are planning to die by suicide. Even though the podcasts offer warnings for people who are suicidal, the instructions within the interview may lead a person with suicidal ideation to copy the suicide death.

What would happen if my friend who lives with suicidal ideation starts to listen to these podcasts?

More reasons to be concerned.

The assisted suicide lobby sells the legalization of assisted suicide by claiming that "safeguards" will prevent people who are not otherwise dying or living with mental illness, from dying by assisted suicide.

First, assisted suicide law "safeguards" are written in an imprecise manner to enable a wide interpretation of the law.

Second, in states that have legalized assisted suicide, the assisted suicide lobby are now working to eliminate the original "safeguards" in the law.

The final goal for the assisted suicide lobby is suicide on demand. For those who question my statement go to list of organizations that are members of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies website. You will notice that the extreme groups are recognized as members of the World Federation

We are concerned that the "mainstream" assisted suicide lobby groups are working to achieve cultural change while the more radical groups are working on the "final solution".

Saturday, March 12, 2022

EPC-USA presented oral argument in Massachusetts Supreme Court Kligler assisted suicide case.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

EPC-USA filed a powerful Amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Court in the Kligler assisted suicide case. 

EPC-USA was the only friend-of-the-court brief that was also asked to provide an oral argument before the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

The case known as Kligler concerns Dr Roger Kligler is living with prostate cancer and seeking death by assisted suicide and Dr Alan Schoenberg, is willing to prescribe a lethal drug cocktail for Kligler to die by assisted suicide.  Kligler who claimed to be terminally ill when the case began in 2016 is very much alive today.

Kligler and Schoenberg are arguing that doctors cannot be prosecuted for prescribing lethal drugs for assisted suicide to a competent terminally ill person under the Massachusetts state constitution.

An article by Sean Salai for the Washington Times on March 11 reported that Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) which represented EPC-USA were the only group asked to provide oral argument before the court in defense of maintaining the Massachusetts law prohibiting assisted suicide. Salai stated:

In a friend-of-the-court brief, ADF attorneys argue that the two doctors “seek to establish a previously unrecognized right to ‘medical aid in dying,’ where a doctor prescribes lethal medication for use in committing suicide.”

“Creating a right to physician-assisted suicide would not be a mere expansion of the right to refuse life-saving treatment,” the ADF said, adding that the “vast majority” of U.S. states and medical associations oppose it.
Salai reported that Sara Buscher, the chair of EPC-USA stated:
Sara Buscher, chair of the nonprofit Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA that filed the amicus brief through Alliance Defending Freedom, said the two doctors want to redefine the purpose of medical treatment. 

“Major medical organizations like the American Medical Association oppose the practice of assisted suicide for good reason: turning doctors into killers is the opposite of a doctor’s role in medicine,” Ms. Buscher said. “Assisted suicide treats some people, particularly the disabled, as better off dead.”

The EPC-USA brief agrued the following:

  • There is no fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide in the Massachusetts Constitution.

The Appellants seek to establish a previously unrecognized right to “medical aid in dying,” where a doctor prescribes lethal medication for use in committing suicide. But the widespread prohibition—not acceptance—of assisted suicide is deeply rooted in Massachusetts’ and the Nation’s history and tradition. And the vast majority of states and secular medical associations oppose it today.

  • There is a fundamental difference between refusing medical treatment and assisted suicide.

Creating a right to physician-assisted suicide would not be a mere expansion of the right to refuse life-saving treatment. The right to reject treatment is based on the common-law right to reject a battery. And death occurs, if at all, by natural causes. Assisted suicide is different: it invites the intrusion of a lethal agent into the patient’s body, intentionally causing death.

  • A right to assisted suicide cannot be a limited right as claimed by the appellants.

Appellants are wrong to suggest a constitutional right to assisted suicide could be limited to a narrow class of people. And that would create problems courts are not equipped to solve.

EPC-USA argued that if there is a right to assisted suicide then it would be soon declared discriminatory to limit that right to certain groups of people, such as people who are terminally ill leading to an ever expanding assisted suicide regime.

Links to more articles on the Massachusetts assisted suicide Kligler court case:

Tuesday, March 8, 2022

If assisted suicide were legal, plaintiff in Massachusetts assisted suicide court case may have died prematurely.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In January 2020 the US assisted suicide lobby appealed a  Massachusetts Superior court decision finding that there was no right to assisted suicide in Massachusetts. Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. 

Important article: EPC-USA files brief to Massachusetts Supreme Court in the Kliger assisted suicide case (Link).

Roger Kligler
The Kligler case concerns Dr Roger Kligler, who is living with prostate cancer and seeking death by assisted suicide and Dr Alan Schoenberg, who is willing to prescribe lethal assisted suicide drugs to Kligler. Kligler who claimed to be terminally ill when launching the case in 2016, is very much alive today.

Kligler and Schoenberg are arguing that the Massachusetts state constitution protects doctors from being criminally prosecuting for prescribing lethal drugs for assisted suicide to a competent terminally ill person.

Tonya Alanez interviewed Dr Kligler for the Cape Cod news. Alanez wrote:
Two years ago, Dr. Roger Kligler needed a walker to travel a short distance from his Falmouth home. Then a loop or two around his cul-de-sac expanded to three or four. Eventually, Kliger was trekking to another neighborhood.

Nowadays, the 70-year-old physician, who was diagnosed with cancer 20 years ago, finds clarity with a meditative two-hour evening walk near a pond and bird sanctuary. Like so many times since Kligler became ill, his health has declined — only to remarkably rebound.

Kligler told Alanez that he doesn't qualify for assisted suicide but he wants the option when the time comes. It is interesting that Kligler admits that he has rebounded several times. Since qualifying for assisted suicide is based on an estimated prognosis, if assisted suicide were legal in Massachusetts, he may have died already.

EPC-USA submitted an Amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, in the Kligler case stating:

  • There is no fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide in the Massachusetts Constitution.

The Appellants seek to establish a previously unrecognized right to “medical aid in dying,” where a doctor prescribes lethal medication for use in committing suicide. But the widespread prohibition—not acceptance—of assisted suicide is deeply rooted in Massachusetts’ and the Nation’s history and tradition. And the vast majority of states and secular medical associations oppose it today.

  • There is a fundamental difference between refusing medical treatment and assisted suicide.

Creating a right to physician-assisted suicide would not be a mere expansion of the right to refuse life-saving treatment. The right to reject treatment is based on the common-law right to reject a battery. And death occurs, if at all, by natural causes. Assisted suicide is different: it invites the intrusion of a lethal agent into the patient’s body, intentionally causing death.

  • A right to assisted suicide cannot be a limited right as claimed by the appellants.

Appellants are wrong to suggest a constitutional right to assisted suicide could be limited to a narrow class of people. And that would create problems courts are not equipped to solve.

If there is a right to assisted suicide then it would be discriminatory to limit that right to certain groups of people, such as people who are terminally ill.

Canada's euthanasia lobby demands that religious medical facilities kill

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The euthanasia lobby has started a campaign to force Canada's denominational medical institutions to participate or provide (MAiD) euthanasia.

The Canadian Press reported that Dying With Dignity is campaigning to stop "forced transfers" a process that they define as transfers from medical facilities that forbid (MAiD) euthanasia.

The euthanasia lobby wants to stop the transfer of people who have requested euthanasia by forcing denominational medical institutions to do euthanasia.

The Canadian Press report stated:
Dying With Dignity says the service is being restricted because of an agreement that allows facilities covered by the Denominational Health Association to collect taxpayer dollars but refuse to perform services they oppose on religious or moral grounds.

Alex Muir, chair of the Metro Vancouver chapter of Dying With Dignity, says upholding the agreement denies eligible people their constitutionally protected right to access a medically assisted death.
The British Columbia government is already forcing provincially funded medical institutions that are not affiliated with a denomination to provide (MAiD) euthanasia.

Last year the Delta Hospice Society was defunded by the BC Ministry of Health because they refused to kill their patients.

The first attempt to force a religious medical institution to participate in euthanasia was in 2019 when the euthanasia lobby pressured the Nova Scotia government to order St Martha's Hospital in Antigonish NS to provide euthanasia. The Nova Scotia government succumbed to the pressure and ordered St Martha's hospital, to provide euthanasia. In response, the Antigonish Health and Wellness Centre, which is not owned by St Martha's hospital, agreed to provide euthanasia.

Friday, March 4, 2022

Harvey Chochinov: Patient centred care - not death hastening.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Dr Harvey Chochinov
Dr Harvey Chochinov is a leading Canadian medical researcher who is known for his studies on the Will to Live and the development of Dignity Therapy to ensure a true death with dignity. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition recognizes the importance of Dignity Therapy.

On February 25, Chochinov wrote a paradigm shifting article that was published as a guest editorial in the Journal of Palliative Medicine titled: The Platinum Rule: A New Standard for Patient-Centred Care

In his article Chochinov suggests that The Platinum Rule, which would have us consider doing unto patients as they would want done unto themselves, may be a more appropriate standard for achieving optimal person-centered care than the Golden Rule.

Chochinov provides this story to illustrate his point:

Bert was a kind 74-year-old happily married gentleman and father of five children. He had smoked cigarettes for a few decades, but had quit years ago, yet had presented with a cancer in his mouth. He underwent a large surgery that left him hoarse and disfigured. He was unable to swallow and depended on a gastrostomy tube for his feedings. Chemotherapy and radiation took their turns in causing more difficulties with nausea and some painful radiation effects.

Eventually the cancer recurred. More chemotherapy did not affect the tumor, and radiation was given with palliative intent. He began to have more pain, and at that point, one of his oncologists sat down with him and his wife and told them that he likely had little time to live, that his tumor was most likely going to progress quickly, and that his last days would become much more difficult, with increasing pain. The oncologist suggested that he might consider Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), to avoid what was sure to be a time of significant suffering.

Bert and his wife were a religious couple who had relied on prayer and the community around them to get them through over the years. They could not agree to MAiD. It was just not on their list of potential options. When he met with the palliative care consultant, he was having increasing pain, which was felt to have a large neuropathic component. A mix of gabapentin and small doses of methadone helped to reduce his pain to a very manageable level. The addition of immunotherapy by another oncologist resulted in a surprisingly good outcome, and now six months later, although still depending on gastrostomy feedings, he is frequently out in the garden, watering and weeding, and hoping to take part in harvest. He recently indicated his quality of life was excellent (C. Woelk, pers. comm.).

Bert was offered MAiD (euthanasia) because the physician percieved his quality of life to be poor, that Bert was better off dying than suffering or even attempting to find a way to keep Bert comfortable in his remaining days.

Chochinov explains how the Golden Rule may have weaknesses in our ethically diverse culture:

The Golden Rule—do unto others as you would have them do unto you—conveys deep wisdom, which can be found in some form in many religious and ethical traditions. In medicine this means treating patients and families the way we would want to be treated or would want our loved ones to be treated in similar circumstances. The Golden Rule is based on the idea of reciprocity and being able to see ourselves in others. If I were that patient, how would I want to be treated? What if this was my spouse, my child, my parent or sibling, how would I want them to be treated? In most instances adherence to The Golden Rule leads to health care decisions and clinical attitudes that are compassionate and embrace the essence of person-centered care.

The Golden Rule, however, has its limitations, as it requires some overlap between how we see ourselves and how others see themselves. So long as the patient's values and priorities align with our own, we can infer their needs based on how we would want to be treated in their situation. The more our worldview and lived experience deviates from theirs, the more the Golden Rule begins to unravel. How would I want to be treated it I were that old? If I were that dependent? Or that disabled, disfigured, marginalized, or disease ridden? Our own biases and perceptions of current, and the possibility of future, suffering can lead to attitudes that are tone deaf and decisions that are discordant with patients' perceptions, values, and goals.

Chochinov acknowledges that people who are very old, dependent, disabled, disfigured, marginalized or disease ridden may not be well served by the Golden Rule. Medical care-givers have their biases, perceptions and attitudes that lead to decisions that do not fit the patients values and goals. People with disabilities have often experienced this form of discrimination.

Chochinov continues by recognizing how the perceptions of the medical team will affect the patient.

Unconscious bias can influence the way we process patient information, affecting our behavior, interactions, and decision making. A sense of therapeutic nihilism and clinical passivity can set in, a feeling that nothing is worth trying and certain lives may not be worth preserving, leading us to withhold treatment, perhaps forgo diagnostic tests and let nature take its course. Inferring we would not want to live this way, distorted compassion—that is compassion based on tainted or inaccurate perceptions of another person's suffering—can lead to ostensibly well-intended advice, actions, or inactions that may be completely at odds with what the patient really wants. Rather than feeling that they have been heard, distorted compassion can result in patients feeling devalued, misunderstood, and further demoralized at the very hands of those who are meant to help.

Catherine Frazee
To provide greater clarity, Chochinov quotes disability rights advocate Catherine Frazee:

Catherine Frazee, a pre-eminent disability rights advocate, who lives with spinal muscular atrophy says, “having to wear diapers and drooling are highly stigmatized departures from what is expected of adult bodies. Those of us who deviate from these norms experience social shame and stigma that erodes resilience and increases vulnerably. The more deeply these stigmatized accounts are embedded in our discourse and social policy, the more deeply virulent social prejudice takes hold within our culture.

Chochinov then explains how the Platinum rule leads to better patient care. He writes:

The Platinum Rule, which would have us consider—doing unto patients as they would want done unto themselves—offers a standard that is more likely to result in treatment decisions that are consistent with patients' personal needs and objectives. Doing unto as per the Platinum Rule implicates not only clinical decisions, but treating patients—as in acting toward them—as they would want to be treated. This means establishing a care tenor that is informed by asking what we need to know about them as a person to take the best care of them possible.

Chochinov concludes by referring back to his Bert's story:

...one can easily imagine Bert's physician recommending MAiD from a position of wanting to mitigate current and future suffering. One can also easily imagine, based on the Golden Rule, that he offered a solution for a clinical situation he could neither fathom himself nor those he loved being able to bear. Distorted compassion, however, represents a failure of the imagination. Perceptions of suffering can obstruct our ability to imagine patients experiencing life as having sustained meaning, purpose, and value, despite even overwhelming challenges. The Golden Rule has its place in medicine, given it provides an initial gauge in our response to patient suffering. But if we are truly intent on offering patient-centered care, consistent with their values, preferences, and goals, consideration of the Platinum Rule is required: doing unto patients as they would want done unto themselves.

More articles related to Dr Harvey Chochinov (Link).


Article supporting euthanasia for mental illness provides excellent argument against euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Article: Quebec committee opposes euthanasia for mental illness (Link).
Jocelyn Downie, one of the world's leading "academic" euthanasia (MAiD) promoters and Mona Gupta, a psychiatrist who has been promoting euthanasia for mental illness alone, responded to the Québec Commission on MAiD that recently decided to support euthanasia for incompetent people, but not support euthanasia for people with mental illness alone.

The response titled: Québec's Commission on MAiD misses the mark on mental disorders
was published by Policy Options on March 2. Downie and Gupta argue that the Québec Commission on MAiD are not following the same play book as the rest of Canada by rejecting euthanasia for mental illness alone. Downie and Gupta state:
Unfortunately, this recommendation is out of step with the evolving thinking on this issue found in jurisprudence, federal legislation and the recommendations of Quebec’s regulatory authorities and professional associations. It is also based on misleading statements and logical inconsistencies.
Downie and Gupta explain that Canadian court decisions have not excluded euthanasia for mental illness alone and the federal government approved euthanasia for mental illness alone when it passed Bill C-7 last year.

What is more interesting about the article is how their arguements supporting euthanasia for mental illness alone provide a strong argument as to why euthanasia should never be legalized. Downie and Gupta state:
If people with mental disorders can access MAiD, the commission worries whether suicidality can be distinguished from a request for MAiD in such cases. However, this, too, is not exclusive to people whose mental disorders are their sole underlying condition. People with certain types of cancer (including lung and pancreatic cancer) are at higher risk of committing suicide than the general population in the first six to 12 months following diagnosis. Yet, this group’s increased risk of suicidality does not lead to exclusion. Instead, the request is assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the totality of the individual’s circumstances.
Therefore, people with certain types of cancer (including lung and pancreatic cancer) are more likely to seek an assisted death in the first 6 to 12 months following a diagnosis. By legalizing euthanasia these people are more likely to seek death by euthanasia. If euthanasia is not legal these people are more likely to accept effective treatment and more likely to survive their cancer diagnosis.

For instance, a study by Dr Sara Moore, a University of Ottawa medical oncologist examined 45 euthanasia (MAiD) deaths of people with lung cancer living in the Ottawa region. She concluded that people with lung cancer who died by euthanasia were less likely to consult with a radiation or medical oncologist, many did not seek a confirmation of their condition and they were less likely to undergo effective treatments.

Euthanasia is never an answer to a human difficulties. We need a society that cares not kills its citizens.

  • Canadian Psychiatric Association's dangerous position on euthanasia (Link).
  •  The complexity of assessing mental health and capacity (Link). 
  • As difficult as it is sometimes, there is always hope. Euthanasia for mental illness is abandonment (Link). 
  • Canada's parliament passed Bill C-7 permitting euthanasia for mental illness (Link).

Wednesday, March 2, 2022

California doctors group launches court case for conscience rights

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

A group of California Doctors who oppose assisted suicide have launched a court case to protect their conscience rights. The California legislature passed assisted suicide expansion bill SB 380. One of the assisted suicide law expansions in SB 380 was to forcing doctors who oppose assisted suicide to be complicit in the act.

An article by Greg Piper that was published in the Ohio Star on February 28 reported:
California doctors who object to assisted suicide are fighting an amended state law that implicates them in their patients' intentional deaths.
The case concerns conscience rights for physicians who oppose assisted suicide. Piper reported:
The original law issued a broad exemption for healthcare providers, granting them a liability shield for "refusing to inform" patients about their right to physician-assisted suicide and "not referring" patients to physicians who will assist in their suicides.

The amended law removed it, leaving providers vulnerable to "civil, criminal, administrative, disciplinary, employment, credentialing, professional discipline, contractual liability, or medical staff action, sanction, or penalty or other liability."

Conscientious objectors are suffering irreparable harm to their free exercise of religion and speech, the suit claims, seeking an injunction and declaration that the law is unconstitutional under any application. California is infringing on their "right not to speak the State's message on the subject of assisted suicide."
Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, is arguing that, in SB 380, participating in assisted suicide is voluntary but that word "participating" is narrowly defined. SB 380 requires physicians who oppose assisted suicide to:
"document a patient's request to die in that individual's medical record, which satisfies the first of two required "oral requests" for a patient to obtain a prescription for lethal drugs. Physicians also must transfer those records to a second physician upon the patient's request."
Since the requirement to document an oral request is part of the assisted suicide approval process therefore doctors who oppose assisted suicide are in fact required to participate in the lethal act.

The court case also recognizes that physicians who participate in assisted suicide receive greater protections in law than physicians who oppose assisted suicide. Piper writes:
...the amended law treats physicians participating in assisted suicide more favorably than those who refuse, as the former cannot be subject to "a complaint or report of unprofessional or dishonest conduct" solely on the basis of their decision to help patients kill themselves, the lawsuit says.
Other concerns with SB 380 included:
  • Reducing the mandatory 15-day waiting period between the two oral requests to 48 hours.
  • Eliminating the original law’s sunset clause, which eliminated the requirement to review the law.

The California 2020 assisted suicide report stated that 435 people died by assisted suicide in 2020. There may be significant under-reporting of assisted suicide deaths. According to the 2020 report there were 164 people who received lethal assisted suicide drugs but their ingestion status was unknown. The report stated:

The ingestion status of the remaining 164 individuals is unknown. Of the remaining 164 individuals, 83, ... have died, but their ingestion status is unknown because follow up information is not available yet. For the remaining 81 individuals, ... both death and ingestion status are pending.
The 2020 California assisted suicide report indicated that 58 of the 150 people who received assisted suicide drugs but there ingestion status was unknown had in fact died by assisted suicide. 

A goal for the assisted suicide lobby is to force physicians who oppose assisted suicide to refer their patients to a physician who will kill.

California Governor, Gavin Newsom signed SB 380 into law on October 6, 2021.

Tuesday, March 1, 2022

Five Years Experience with (MAiD) euthanasia in Canada - A skeptics point of view.

Tom Koch
Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition


An excellent research article was written by Tom Koch and published on February 12, 2022 titled: A Sceptics Report: Canada’s Five Years Experience with Medical Termination (MAiD)

Koch, who is an ethicist and long-time researcher on issues related to end of life care, examines Canada's experience with euthanasia in comparison to other jurisdictions that have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Koch thoroughly examines the history that led to the legalization of euthanasia (MAiD) in Canada and compares Canada to other jurisdictions, such as the Netherlands.

With reference to Canada Koch writes:

The Canadian experience since 2016 has evidenced a similar pattern of expansion. The annual number of cases increased annually as the class of potential recipients expanded. The Second Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada, 2020 reported that between 2016 and 2020 the number of reported cases of medical termination increased from 1018 to 7589. ... The result provincially and nationally has been the very definition of a slippery slope with an increasing number of cases whose individuals had a progressively broader set of medical conditions.
To illustrate his point Koch writes:
In 2018, Canadian newspapers reported favourably on the medically induced deaths of George and Shirley Brickendens. In their 90’s, both were in reasonably good health, pain-free, and comfortably situated in a retirement home. Their existing chronic conditions were well managed medically and posed no immediate threat of serious decline. They sought and received MAiD not because they were in pain or particular distress but because they feared a future disabling illness. In the medical assessment required by law one doctor wrote that Mr. Brickendens, “has a serious and incurable illness, which is age-related frailty. It is end stage”. This ageist diagnosis was the physician’s way of fitting a stable, reasonably healthy patient with some chronic conditions into the broad, legal standard of candidacy.
Koch then comments on circumstances where euthanasia might be considered for people who only fear future suffering. He continues by writing on an experience he had with a treatable patient who had requested euthanasia. Koch writes:
A similar fear was that MAiD would become a default clinical response in cases where treatment would otherwise be recommended. In 2020, for example, I was asked to consult for a 93-year-old woman in Toronto living independently with some home assistance whose bursitis prevented her from dressing and washing herself. She told an attending physician if she could not do those things she did not wish to live. She was then referred for assessment as a candidate for MAiD. Upon examination with a palliative care physician, however, we determined her bursitis could be easily treated thus permitting her to regain shoulder-arm function. With treatment her request was withdrawn and she died naturally several years later.
Koch examines euthanasia of people with a wrong diagnosis. He first comments on the fact that of 133 people who Jack Kevorkian helped to kill, there were 88 autopsies and 3 of those autopsies indicated that there was "no evidence of any chronic, progressive disease." Koch then refers to an Australian study which found that 10% of people who ask for MAiD will have a misdiagnosis.

Koch continues by referring to a Canadian study on lung cancer patients that found that people diagnosed with lung cancer will often forgo effective life-saving treatment and immediately seek euthanasia. Koch writes:
In a recent report at the World Conference on Lung Cancer, Canadian researchers reported that with the increased accessibility of MAID, “Patients are seeking this option despite the availability of more effective and more tolerable treatment options. … While biomarker-driven, targeted therapies and other immunotherapies can be effective, many patients undergo medial termination without “accessing—or, in some cases, without being assessed for—these treatment options"
Koch then examines the reason why Canadians are asking for euthanasia. Koch states:
The Health Canada report emphasizes the degree to which those seeking MAiD were concerned with the limiting effects of their conditions (84.9%) and a resulting loss of ability to perform daily activities (81.7%). That is, some say, while life might be lived it would not a life they wish to pursue. The suggestion that this is simply a logical and rational choice assumes that those limits are necessarily unmanageable.

Koch then states that some people are seeking euthanasia (MAiD) due to a lack of medical or community supports. He refers to a study by Gallagher et al. that argued, that a “hastened death” chosen because of disease burden and resulting distress is a medical error in the absence of “timely, quality palliative care.” 

Roger Foley
Koch continues by writing about the case of Roger Foley:

In the most recent case to gain notoriety, 42-year old Roger Foley’s battle with the Health Science Centre’s Victoria Hospital in London, Ontario, is instructive. Foley has a degenerative neurological condition requiring skilled home support. Health authorities contracted with a private, for-profit company to provide his at-home care. The result of untrained, unsupervised personnel was, Foley charged, repeated hospitalizations. “I have been given the wrong medications, I have been provided food where I got food poisoning, I’ve had workers fall asleep in my living room, burners and appliances constantly left on, a fire, and I have been injured during exercises and transfers,” Foley claimed. “When I report these things to the agency, I would not get a response” (CTV 2018). The case became a cause celebre among disability rights advocates when Foley refused to leave the relative safety of his hospital bed and sued for the right to chose his own home care providers (Foley and Victoria Hospital et al. 2018). He became a national figure after tape recording a hospital ethicist suggesting he might consider medical termination instead of seeking better home care.
Koch then seeks to open a wider discusion. He states:
Clearly, on the evidence, skeptics expectation of a slippery slope along with an increasing number of persons in an expanding class of eligible persons would seek and receive early medical termination was justified. The number of persons accessing medical aid in dying has expanded to include those who are simply afraid of future illnesses as well as those whose condition seems to them untenable in the absence of necessary services. And, too, there are those who might live with appropriate care and cognitive, physical, or sensory limits who simply refuse to accommodate the changes that would require. The critical concern of early skeptics that medical termination would become a substitute for the kind of palliative and other services the Senate Committee called for in 1995 has been fulfilled. MAiD is increasingly a default choice offered, and in some cases promoted, in areas where expert care and support are unavailable and sometimes even where they are available.
Koch then discusses conscience rights and the pressure within the health care system to provide euthanasia. He writes:
Undiscussed here but not unimportant has been the manner in which practitioners and institutions have been pressured to provide MAiD assessments and service. Much of the evidence is anecdotal... But the defunding of a Delta, British Columbia, hospice that refused to provide MAiD, available at a hospital literaly next door, is one indicator of the pressures brought on those concerned that medical termination may be inappropriate.
Koch argues that the lack of proper end-of-life care has made MAiD a choice for many people. He states that some people will suggest that what is done is done, but Koch argues the point. He states:
First, by introducing MAiD without attention to the necessities of care for those with chronically limiting, often painful progressive conditions the impetus to assure that care is diminished. The class of those who might otherwise protest their lack of care, and choice of alternatives, is diminished and a public demand for better care is diminished as well. The only question has become if a more or less cognitively able person asks for it. But if we wish to promote patient autonomy and freedom of choice the lack of alternatives to medical termination means the choices open to patients are limited. It is, as I argued in 1996, like asking the most vulnerable among us to play “Russian Roulette with a fully loaded revolver”

Koch then argues that MAiD is diminishing equality. He writes:

Finally, promoting MAiD without prior attention to the palliative, rehabilitative, psychological and social services implies that those so in need are somehow unworthy of supportive care that would make an assisted life worthwhile. Medical termination provides both an alternative to the limited care they receive but as well a quick and cost-efficient way to address what might otherwise be a complex and expensive care program. Thus from the perspective of disability the person him or herself is diminished in importance relative to others in the population at large.
Based on the lack of real options available to Canadians, Koch challenges the concept of choice. He writes:
The history of MAiD also raises the question of what is meant by autonomy and freedom of choice. That has been the clarion call of advocates from the start but, in the absence of adequate and sufficient clinical and social services what choice is there, really? Typically what is offered is not a balanced and reasonable choice between living and dying “with dignity” (Koch, 2000a) but simply medical termination. These are important issues that are hidden beneath clarion calls for patient choice, autonomy, and freedoms of choice in medical affairs.
Koch is stating that since Canada's healthcare system lacks the supports that are necessary to ensure "freedom of choice" as defined by those who support euthanasia. He continues by quoting from former euthanasia leaders in the Netherlands. He writes:
In 1994, Dr. Cornelisse-Claussen, then director of the Dutch Voluntary Euthanasia Society made this emphatically clear: “Everyone here is able to get good health care, and I think only in this context can a law like we have be passed. If the socio-economic circumstances in a country are different, and if there are lots of financial problems with getting good care, then people should be very, very, very careful about introducing these possibilities”. A similar caution was offered, cited in the same article, by Dutch physician Dr. Gerrit Kimsma, an enthusiastic proponent of physician assisted or directed death. "The Netherlands has an extensive primary care system, with universal access with a nursing support that covers 24-hour care for terminal patients.”
Koch explains that the US Supreme Court Gluckberg decision shared the same warnings concerning the lack of effective end-of-life care.
 

Koch concludes that euthanasia proponents Jocelyn Downie and Udo Schuklenk are promoting Canada's euthanasia law as the model for other jurisdictions. This explains why several jurisdictions have debated legalizing Canadian style euthanasia laws. Koch states that if Canada's experience is to be a model for other countries, as Downie and Schuklenk hope, it serves better as a caution than recommendation.

A link to previous articles by ethicist Tom Koch (Link).