Friday, May 12, 2023

Portugal's parliament overturns Presidential veto of euthanasia bill

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Portugal News reported today (May 12) that Portugal's parliament overturned President de Sousa's veto of the euthanasia bill:
Parliament has today confirmed the decree on medically assisted death, which had been vetoed by the President of the Republic, with a total of 129 votes in favour, forcing its promulgation.
On March 31, The Portugal Resident reported that Portugal's Parliament passed a fourth euthanasia bill with two of the previous bills being declared unconstitutional by Portugal's Constitutional Court and a third bill being vetoed by President de Sousa. The current bill permitted assisted suicide, but persons with disabilities who would have difficulty self-administering with assisted suicide could die by euthanasia.

President de Sousa
On April 20, Portugal's President Marcelo Rebello de Sousa vetoed the fourth euthanasia bill that had passed in parliament. According to Natasha Donn reporting for the Portgual Resident on April 20 stated:
President Marcelo has returned the 4th draft of the bill decriminalising assisted dying to parliament, admitting that his reservations are his own and will not require another sending of the text to the Constitutional Court. ...Marcelo’s doubts came in the form of who “defines the patient’s physical incapacity to self-administer lethal drugs, as well as who should ensure medical supervision during the act of medically assisted death.”
Euthanasia directly and intentionally causes the death of a person by lethal injection. Portugal needs to commit to a culture that cares for its citizens in need, not kill them.

Canada’s poverty reduction scheme

Is poverty or homelessness a good reason for euthanasia?
This article was published by Mercatornet on May 11, 2023.

By Michael Cook

If you have read A Christmas Carol, you may remember Ebenezer Scrooge’s opinion about social services, as expressed to two gentlemen who ask him for a donation to make “some slight provision for the Poor and destitute”. Are there no prisons, asks Scrooge; are there no workhouses?

“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die,” they say.

To which Dickens’ monument to misanthropy retorts: “If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

The spirit of Scrooge seems to have migrated across the Atlantic and taken up residence in Canada where Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) – aka euthanasia — for the poor is warmly supported.

There have been a number of well-publicised cases of people who have applied for MAiD simply because they cannot find housing, or because their housing is inadequate.

For instance, take the case of Amir Farsoud, a 54-year-old who applied for euthanasia last year because he feared becoming homeless. He said that his quality of life is “awful, non-existent and terrible … I do nothing other than manage pain.” However, it would be bearable if he didn’t have to cope with the fear of homelessness. He depends on social assistance and can’t find affordable accommodation. “I don’t want to die but I don’t want to be homeless more than I don’t want to die”.

So what does the Canadian public think about cases like this?

Lots of them are cool with it.

A huge majority – 73% — are broadly supportive of the country’s euthanasia legislation, which has been called the most radical in the world.

MAiD was touted as a solution for people with terminal illness in unbearable pain. But now that people are dying by the thousand under Canada’s euthanasia law, just about any reason will do.

According to a recent poll by Research Co, a company which monitors public opinion in Canada, more than one in four would allow euthanasia for homelessness (28%) and for poverty (27%). Even more shocking is that the poll showed that 50% of Canadians would allow euthanasia for people who had been unable to access medical treatment and 51% for people with a disability.

Alarmingly, millennials are even more Scrooge-like than their elders. Forty-one percent of people between 18 and 34 agree or strongly agree that poverty and homelessness should make Canadians eligible for euthanasia. That’s two out of five in the up-and-coming generation.

Even worse, bioethicists – who ought to be defending the rights of the vulnerable – are defending the right of poor people to receive euthanasia if they want it. “All options on the table are really tragic and sad,” a bioethicist at the University of Toronto told the National Post recently. “But the least harmful way forward is to allow people who are competent to make decisions to have access to this choice, even if it’s a terrible one.”

But Yuan Yi Zhu, a Canadian research fellow at Harris Manchester College at the University of Oxford, got it right. “It is more than tragic,” he told the National Post, “it is a moral stain on our country, for which future generations will have to atone for.”

Canadians are reputed to be the nicest people on the planet. If the test of a just society is how it cares for the vulnerable, Canadians have flunked. How did they end up turning into Scrooges who believe that poor people are better off dead?

The answer which springs to mind is that Canada has drifted far from its moorings in the Christian faith. It’s no coincidence that Christian affiliation and practice are at an all-time low in Canada.

And this is what a post-Christian welfare system looks like – a syringe and a bottle of pills. In the scriptures of a religion which most Canadians once believed you can read: “Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself call out and not be answered.” Pity elderly Canadians when those Millennials are running the country and need to balance budgets.

Wednesday, May 10, 2023

Cyprus man confessed to killing his wife because she was allegedly terminally ill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Janice Hunter
An article by Ryan Fahey published by the Mirror on May 10 claims that British expat, David Hunter, who is on trial in Cyprus for killing his wife Janice by "assisted suicide" that Janice may not have been terminally ill. Janice died on December 18, 2021.

The media should not refer to the death as an "assisted suicide" when Hunter is on trial for murder. Fahey reported that Hunter confessed to killing his "terminally ill" wife and Fahey also reported that Haematologist Dr Ourania Seimeni said Janice had myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), which is not necessarily terminal. The doctor admitted that 30 per cent of cases of MDS can lead to leukaemia.

Fahey reported that Hunter tried to plead guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter but the charge of murder went forward to trial. According to a BBC report Hunter pled guilty to killing his wife Janice by asphyxiation.

Hunter's defense team is arguing that his confession was inadmissable because he was not given legal representation or offered a right to remain silent and he did not have a psychiatric assessment before being interviewed.

Hunter's defense team is focusing on Janice's possible terminal illness of but it should not matter because David Hunter confessed to killing her by asphyxiation.

Assisted suicide should not be a defense for murder

First, murder is not the same as assisting a suicide. With assisted suicide, the person kills oneself with the assistance of another person but with murder the person is kills the other person. 

Second, offering a lesser charge based on the health of the victim is a form of discrimination. The law needs to equally protect everyone.

Ontario man charged with two counts of aiding and abetting suicide.

If you or anyone you know is struggling with mental health there are a number of ways to get help, including by calling Talk Suicide Canada at 1-833-456-4566.

Kenneth Law
Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

CTV News Videojournalist, Jon Woodward, reported on May 9 that Kenneth Law, 57, faces two counts of aiding and abetting the deaths of two people in Peel Region, allegedly through the online sales of a legal substance that is lethal in high concentrations. Law sold the substance online world-wide for the purposes of aiding suicide.

Woodward reports that the case has world-wide implications:
The case is being watched as far away as the United Kingdom, where several families believe their troubled loved ones were among the recipients of the 1,200 packages police allege Law sent to more than 40 countries from the Lincoln Green post office in a Mississauga mall.
Neha Raju and Tom Parfett
Law is allegedly linked to deaths in many countries. Woodward reports:
How can so many suicides be linked? There’s something going on behind the scenes,” said Lee Cooper from the U.K.

Cooper believes his 41-year-old brother Gary consumed sodium nitrite mailed from Canada last year.

Alongside Cooper, 23-year-old Neha Raju and 22-year-old Tom Parfett died in the U.K., 20-year-old Noelle Ramirez died in Colorado, and 17-year-old Anthony Jones died in Michigan.
Police are investigating the 1200 people who received packages from Law. Woodward reports:
Peel police say they have been tracking the packages sent from these companies, including Imtime Cuisine and Icemac, and police in Colorado and the U.K. did a blitz of welfare checks to possible customers in recent days.

In Saskatchewan, Regina’s police service confirmed to CTV News Toronto it is re-examining a death after being alerted to it by their coroner's service on May 4.

Halifax’s Regional Police also told CTV News Toronto they conducted a wellness check after being contacted by Peel Regional Police.
Woodward reported that police are examining suicide deaths to determine if these deaths were linked to Kenneth Law. Since 2020 the suicide substance may have been linked to 30 deaths in Ontario, 15 deaths in British Columbia, 2 deaths in Manitoba and 1 death in New Brunswick as well as many other jurisdictions.

Law was believed to have distributed 1200 packages of the substance, it is likely that many more suicide deaths will eventually be connected to Law.

Previous article:

Tuesday, May 9, 2023

Canadians oppose further expansions of (MAiD) euthanasia.

    Canadians are deeply divided on euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A press release about a recent poll by Researchco.com concerning Canada's euthanasia law states that "Canadians back the status quo on MAiD." 

When analyzing the data I conclude that Canadians oppose further expansions of euthanasia and support for Canada's law has dropped.

The Researchco press release states that 73% of Canadians are satisfied with the current MAiD law which was down by 3% since 2021. The poll indicates that 48% of Canadians are satisified with the current law, 25% are undecided and 27% are dissatisfied with the law. The undecided are not necessarily satisfied with the law.
Canadians are deeply divided on euthanasia.

Quebec had the highest support for the existing law where 53% were satisfied with the law while Alberta had the lowest support with only 40% indicating satisfaction with the law.

The federal government recently passed legislation which will allow euthanasia for mental illness starting in March 2024. According to the poll, only 43% support euthanasia for mental illness.

The Researchco poll results are similar to the Angus Reid Institute poll in February 2023 which found that 51% were opposed and 31% supported euthanasia based on mental health.

There were several stories, over the past few years, of people who were approved for euthanasia based on disability or an inability to obtain medical treatment, homelessness or poverty.

The poll found that Canadians were divided on euthanasia being approved based on an inability to obtain medical treatment (51% support) or disability (50% support). When considering euthanasia for homelessness support dropped to 28% and support dropped to 27% when considering euthanasia for poverty.

The poll did not ask about child euthanasia (mature minors) or euthanasia by advanced consent.

Canadians are not demanding expansions to the euthanasia law and support for Canada's euthanasia law has dropped. The polling company claimed that 73% of Canadians support the current law, but the data indicated 48% support for the current law and 25% were undecided. Similar to previous polls, the language of the poll effects the outcome of the poll.

Peter Singer supports doctors snuffing out disabled people's lives.

Meghan Schrader
By Meghan Schrader

Meghan is an autistic person who is an instructor at E4 Texas at the University of Texas (Austin) and a EPC-USA board member.

I have a confession to make: As with most people in the disability justice movement, I hate Peter Singer. His writing remind me of the hate speech I experienced growing up. During a lunch with some friends at the Society of Disability Studies conference in 2012, Peter Singer came up, and I said, “Hey, is anyone looking forward to when Peter Singer dies? I know that’s wrong, it goes against my morals to think that way, but I just can’t help it, man, I kind of want him to die.” Everybody at the table understood.

(Please no one take the previous paragraph as a suggestion to harm Peter Singer. It wouldn’t do the broader situation any good and it’s not worth getting lost in the criminal justice system.) 

I first heard about Peter Singer in a great books honors program in 2005. The idea of the class was to get us to think about how we could use insights gleaned from the world’s greatest thinkers to advance sound cultural policies and positive social change, and in the interests of exposing us to all sorts of different thinkers, the professor cited something Peter Singer had said about politics.

Suddenly a disabled friend became very upset. She approached the professor with tears in her eyes. “As one of the people who would have to die in Singer’s society, I can’t believe that you would cite him like you would any other thinker,” she said. The professor said that “Well, he’s someone who should be refuted. I’m exposing you to his thoughts to help you learn how to do that.” But the friend continued to experience deep distress. She was so upset that she needed to leave the room. Then she wept in my arms-hard-for about half an hour. She told me that Peter Singer thought that disabled people should be killed for the good of society.

Honestly, I thought that my friend had misinterpreted something that Peter Singer had written. I felt that people with disabilities were oppressed by society, I could observe that fact in pretty much every social system around me. But, no 21st century leaders wanted to kill disabled people, right?

But, when I went to the library and looked Singer up, there it was: blatant hate speech, published approvingly for all to read, as if the author was debating how to address climate change instead of whether doctors should snuff out disabled people’s lives. He was saying that some people with disabilities weren’t people. I was shocked. What the heck? How had the mainstream social justice movement allowed someone like Singer to have a career? It was a real wake up call about how much society either hated disabled people or didn’t give a crap about us. I was faced with the fact that mainstream society was so apathetic toward disabled people that it had collectively turned its head while bigots like Singer essentially advocated for hate crimes.

So, I decided that I would like to tell Peter Singer that myself. In 2015, when I was serving on the board of the Boston Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Singer came to Boston to give a lecture on his Effective Altruism theory. We took a vote, and we democratically agreed that it was a good idea to go and protest Singer’s lecture. Me and the primary leader of the group went into the lecture to ask a question, and the other members of ASAN handed out fliers to people walking into the lecture. My assignment was to ask him a question from the audience.

I was not picked to ask a question, but I still wanted to ask it; I wanted to see what he would say. So, I approached Peter Singer at the end of a book signing line. Our conversation went like this:

Me: "I don’t have a book to sign, but I do have a question...[nod], You have previously used the example of seeing eye dogs as an example of charity that you think is ineffective [nod], and even just now, you used the example of conjoined twins [nod], which falls into a pattern of you using the disabled as objects of philosophical discourse-"

Singer: "I want to help the disabled in third world countries-I want them to be able to *see.* It might not be good for some blind people in America, but I want to help the disabled."

Me: “Yes, but not only does that logic not address the issue of people who are blind in third world countries and might need seeing eye dogs, but also represents you volunteering a resource that you yourself do not need. Hence,. [referring to notes on cell phone] Because your epistemological perspective is that of an affluent, white, ablebodied, heterosexual, male resident of the United States who is not subject to systemic oppression, and who tends to volunteer disadvantaged people groups for the forfeiture of resources that you do not need, one might situate your theory of effective altruism within a privileged-"

Singer: "OH, COME ON!"

Event Organizer: “Yes, Ma’am, that’s all…”

Me: “OK….in short, it’s easy to talk about the ineffectiveness of providing certain resources when you are a privileged, white, affluent male.”

[Walking away]

[Calling after me] “Well, you’re a very privileged woman yourself.”

Me: “That’s right.”,

Singer: “Well, then none of your ideas are any good either, because you’re a privileged white person.”

Me: “I am a privileged person who cares about subjugated individuals.”

Event Organizer: “Ok, Ma’am, that’s all.”

Me: “Ok, that’s fine, have a nice night.”
Of course, I can’t prove that this interaction even happened. But, those who doubt my veracity should note that it parallels pretty much every other interaction that disabled people have had with Singer at one of his lectures. Disabled people have been using nonviolent civil disobedience and blunt rhetoric to challenge Singer at his lectures since the 1980s. A UK disability rights activist reasonably compared Singer’s rhetoric to the rhetoric of Satoshi Uematsu, a man who stabbed 19 disabled people to death in a Sagamihara Japan nursing home in 2016. Singer didn’t like that comparison at all. (Article Link), (Article Link).

There are many ways to deal with people like Peter Singer. Some people prefer finesse; running right up to him after a presentation and telling him what a monster he is - is only one way to resist people like him. But, at the end of the day, people like Peter Singer are bullies who need to be stopped. In the Psychology Today article, “Stand Up to Bullies,” author Rick Hanson writes, “Bullies target lone individuals or minority groups to prove their dominance and create fear. So gather allies who will stand with you if you’re being bullied.” In addition to other suggestions he gives for answering a bullying, Hanson advises that the targets of a bully should do the following:

  1. With moral confidence, name the bullying for what it is.
  2. Dispute false claims of legitimacy.
  3. Laugh at bullies (who are usually thin-skinned).

That’s essentially what disability rights activists, disability studies scholars, and disability rights allies are doing when we stand up to people like Peter Singer. Because that’s what Peter Singer is: a socially enabled, grown-up bully. Of course he’s not the only one; Canada’s disabled citizens are essentially living in a Singerian universe-one where people are offered the choice to be killed while money that might be spent on accommodating them is used for other things (Article Link).

So, my advice to Singer’s opponents is that if you ever have the chance to confront him or one of his friends at a lecture, just call them on their inordinate social privilege. Use that fact to point out why utilitarian bioethicists’ ideas suck. They won’t like it, and they’ll respond in the petulant, angry way that any bully would. By doing that, the disability rights movement and our allies might eventually be able to implement Hanson’s 5th suggestion, which is, “Remove bullies from positions of power.” (Article Link).

Alex Schadenberg comments: It must be noted that Peter Singer is taken seriously by society. When Meghan states that Canada's euthanasia law is Singerian, she is right. Singer is a bully but he is also a dangerous philosopher who advocates for countless killings of disabled people, newborns with disabilities and many others.

Saturday, May 6, 2023

Euthanasia of Canadian prisoners. Is it a form of capital punishment?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Tristan Hopper published an excellent article in the National Post on Thursday May 4, 2023 about Canadian prisoners who are dying by euthanasia. Hopper begins by stating that Canada's last capital punishment death occurred 61 years ago, but now euthanasia of Canadian prisoners eerily except that capital punishment usually has oversight.

Hopper writes that nine prisoners have died by euthanasia in Canada. The APTN network reported that the first three prisoners to die by euthanasia were indiginous Canadians who remained shackled during the killing.

Ivan Zinger
Ivan Zinger, Canada's Correctional Investigator, told Kathleen Martens reporting for the APTN network, that euthanasia should never be done in the prison. He stated:
“Under no circumstances should the procedure of MAiD be dealt with inside a penitentiary,”

“That is highly problematic, unethical and immoral in my view. I think we would be the only jurisdiction in the world who would do that.”Kim Beaudin, vice-chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and a member of corrections’ National Aboriginal Advisory Committee opposes (MAiD) euthanasia being done in prisons. 
Beaudin told Martens that 32% of Canadians in prison are indiginous and stated:
“I’m not in support of (the law) because I’ve always believed there should be hope for them to get out of there,” Beaudin says.

“But a lot of people have given up; a lot of Indigenous people have given up inside.”
Canada has the highest rate of euthanasia for prisoners. Hopper wrote:
Canada’s rate of in-custody MAID is well beyond that of any other jurisdiction in which assisted suicide is legal. Everywhere else, the procedure is either not done or has yielded no more than one instance that qualified under special circumstances.

Belgium — which legalized assisted suicide in 2002 — granted euthanasia to its first prisoner just this year. Geneviève Lhermitte, who murdered her five children in 2008, convinced authorities that she was so wracked by guilt and suicidality that she met the criteria for assisted death.

Notably, Belgium’s first instance of a prisoner requesting assisted suicide turned into a national legal controversy that ultimately ended with the prisoner — serial rapist and murderer Frank Van den Bleeken — being denied Belgium’s usual “right to die” in 2015.
In March 2021, Canada eliminated the "terminal illness" requirement for euthanasia. Some Canadian prisoners who are serving life sentences are considering euthanasia as a way out of prison. Hopper reports:
The University of Calgary’s Jessica Shaw is one of the only researchers to examine the phenomenon of MAID in Canadian prisons. In a 2021 study, she interviewed nine inmates about the topic, and while all of them dismissed concerns that prisoners would be pressured into MAID, half were open to the idea of assisted suicide as an alternative to serving a long sentence.
Hopper reported Shaw as saying:
“I’ve considered it already, because I’ve got (decades) in. I look at it, if they could say, ‘Okay, you’re never getting out,’ this is something that I would do. That I would consider,” said one.
A CTV news report by Avis Favaro, CTV News Medical Correspondent reported concerns with the extension of euthanasia to people with mental illness in relation to euthanasia of prisoners. Favaro reported:
Another concern looms for Zinger and Shaw, as the criteria for applying for MAID will likely expand in March of next year to include mental illness as a sole reason for requesting assisted death.

Zinger says data from CSC indicates 75 per cent of those imprisoned federally have a current mental health diagnosis, while other studies show prison life itself can worsen mental health.

"If the provisions are extended to include mental illness, there could be a lot more people that become eligible," Zinger said, calling for more transparency in discussing MAID among prisoners. "I believe that (CSC) should be reporting it in an open way...so that we can track it better and we can ensure that how it's being provided is in sync with the legislation and human dignity.”
Euthanasia in Canada is out-of-control for several reasons. The first is that the language of the law lacks any real definition. A second clear problem is that in Canada euthanasia is not viewed as a "last resort" but rather it is interpreted to be a medical act.

Canada must completely re-evaluate it's euthanasia law. Canada is heading towards a system of killing on demand.

Friday, May 5, 2023

New Zealand report: First year of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

This article was recently published by the Australian Care Alliance.

Euthanasia and assistance to suicide became legal in New Zealand on 7 November 2021 under the End of Life Choices Act which passed the Parliament by 69 votes to 51 in December 2019 and was endorsed at a referendum in 2020 by 65.1% of voters.

Numbers
  • 257 people were euthanased or assisted to suicide between 7 November 2021 and 6 November 2022.
  • Deaths by euthanasia and assisted suicide accounted for approximately 0.67% of all deaths in New Zealand.
  • 23% more women than men applied for euthanasia or assistance to suicide - 365 women and 296 men.
Eligibility criteria

The key eligibility criteria are that the person is an adult New Zealand citizen or permanent resident who, according to two assessing medical practitioners, “suffers from a terminal illness that is likely to end the person’s life within 6 months”.

Neither medical practitioner needs to have any specialist qualification in a field relevant to the particular terminal illness.

If either or both assessing practitioners are uncertain of the person’s competence to make an informed decision then the person must be examined by a psychiatrist to determine this matter.
Only 6 of the 636 people assessed by a first medical practitioner or the 475 people assessed by a second medical practitioner for eligibility between 7 Nov 2021 and 6 November 2022 were referred to a psychiatrist, and each of these were confirmed as eligible other than one person who died before the assessment was completed.
Health practitioner

Health practitioners are not permitted to initiate a discussion with or make a suggestion to a patient about accessing euthanasia or assistance to suicide under the Act.

A medical practitioner with a conscientious objection can refuse to participate but must advise a person who requests access of the person’s right to ask the SCENZ Group for the name and contact details of a replacement medical practitioner. The SCENZ (Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand) Group maintains a register of health practitioners willing to provide access to people seeking euthanasia or assistance to suicide.

Administration

If the person chooses to self-administer the prescribed lethal poison it is only supplied to them shortly before a time specified by the person for self-administration (suicide).

Regardless of whether the lethal poison is self-administered or administered by an attending medical or nurse practitioner, the attending medical or nurse practitioner (or a substitute practitioner) must be in “close proximity to the person”, but not necessarily in the same room or area, until the person’s death.

Annual report

The only elements required by the Act to be in the annual report from the Registrar (Assisted Dying) are the total number of deaths and the number of deaths occurring through each of the four methods described in the Act and the number of complaints received about breaches of this Act and how those complaints were dealt with.

The first annual report covered the period 7 November 2021 to 31 March 2022 and reported on 66 assisted deaths.

The four methods of administration of the lethal poison set out in s19(2)(a) of the Act are, and the number of deaths by each method between 7 November 2021 and 31 March 2022 were:
  • ingestion, triggered by the person - 6
  • intravenous delivery, triggered by the person - 4
  • ingestion through a tube, triggered by the attending medical practitioner or an attending nurse practitioner – 0, and
  • injection administered by the attending medical practitioner or an attending nurse practitioner - 56
No complaints about breaches of the Act were received.

Assisted suicide lobby works to undermine disability rights opposition to assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A May 2022 powerpoint presentation by the Statewide Campaigns Director with Dying With Dignity outlines a strategy for assisted suicide campaigners on how to undermine opposition to assisted suicide by disability rights organizations. 

Among the key strategies is the attempt by assisted suicide groups to undermine disability rights groups by claiming that they are promoting a religion centered agenda rather than being a legitimate disability rights organization.

After undermining the disability rights groups that oppose assisted suicide, the second goal is to work with the statewide disability rights groups that focus on protection and advocacy and groups that provide client assistance programs by gaining their confidence while undermining the disability rights groups that oppose assisted suicide.

The assisted suicide lobby successfully convinced a key disability rights groups in New Mexico to take a neutral stand on assisted suicide which undermined the disability rights opposition to assisted suicide and helped lead to the legalization of assisted suicide in New Mexico.

The assisted suicide lobby recognizes that disablity rights groups have been a central factor in preventing the legalization of assisted suicide in many states. In response the Dying With Dignity powerpoint outlines how the assisted suicide lobby plans to undermine disability rights groups that oppose assisted suicide. The powerpoint also provides a warning of how the death lobby plans to attack disability rights groups with lies in order to undermine their opposition to assisted suicide.

On April 25, 2023, a court case was launched to declare the California assisted suicide law unlawful and unconstitutional.

The United Spinal Association, Not Dead Yet, Institute for Patients’ Rights, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Lonnie VanHook, and Ingrid Tischer launched a lawsuit in California to strike down the California assisted suicide law with the goal of the case going to the United States Supreme Court to strike down assisted laws throughout the US. (Link to the complaint).

The Californial court case effectively expresses how assisted suicide laws undermine protections and equality for people with disabilities in America and clarifies why disability rights groups must remain united in opposition to assisted suicide.

Thursday, May 4, 2023

A nurses story: Euthanasia (MAiD) death was not dignified.

This story was sent to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition by a nurse who wanted to remain anonymous. The nurse changed all names to ensure the privacy rights of those involved. -Alex Schadenberg.

They say euthanasia is a compassionate, dignified way to die. They say everyone should have the option, and that a life with suffering is not a life worth living. But that's not what I've seen. I know Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) to be messier and more distressing than anyone cares to talk about. I have seen the ripple effects of euthanasia, and the complexity it adds to grief. I want people to know the impact MAID has on healthcare professionals. I am a palliative care nurse, and this is my side of the story.

One shift I worked with a patient named Laura who was scheduled to be euthanized later that day. Laura had a terminal metastatic breast cancer diagnosis, but with no exceptionally challenging symptoms that I could observe. However, she told me she was tired of living, and the thought of living longer scared her more than dying. Laura had picked out music to play in the background while she died, and had chosen which loved ones she wanted by her side. It was planned for 6 pm. She was alert and oriented, and had signed a waiver saying that if for whatever reason she was no longer judged to be of sound mind at the time of the MAID provision, she could be euthanized anyways. She thought she had complete control. Just a few hours before 6 pm Laura had a completely unexpected grand mal seizure. She wouldn't stop seizing and required large doses of a sedating anticonvulsant. The time of the provision came, and she was confused and groggy from the sedating medication, and unable to properly confirm she wanted the euthanasia, or say goodbye to her family members. She tried to speak but no one could understand what she was saying. Laura was euthanized at 6 pm, according to the waiver she had signed. This was what she had requested, but the family came out of her room shaking, with eyes wide. They cried, and kept saying it should have never happened that way. They had no closure. There was no dignified, peaceful ending. Just their loved one, killed in the middle of trying to say something.

This was a horrible death. If Laura had chosen to die naturally, maybe she would have lived two more weeks. Maybe she would've needed more sedatives, and spent more time sleeping. But we would've kept her comfortable. Her family could've been by her side and treasured any awake moments and words she had to give. As her nurse I would've battled any restlessness, worked to prevent any seizures, noticed a furrowed brow and given pain medication. I could've explained the dying process to Laura's family, spoken about the changes we were seeing in breathing, in circulation, and slowly walked alongside them in their grief as she grew closer to death. Instead her death was sudden, and traumatic, and the family went home right after without anyone to support them through the process.

It wasn't just the family traumatized by this death. For every MAID provision, a nurse is in the room, along with the MAID provider injecting the lethal medication. As a conscientious objector to euthanasia, I did not have to be in the room as it happened. Instead, my coworker volunteered. After Laura's life was ended, this coworker sped out of the room shaking and crying, distressed in a way no natural death of a patient has ever affected her. I know multiple other nurses who have been through the same experience. Although they had no religious or moral objections to MAID, after witnessing it first hand they swore to never be in the room again while it happened. They were deeply unsettled, and their conscience told them what they couldn't admit to themselves: the intentional ending of a life is wrong, no matter the circumstances.

The ripple effects of Laura being euthanized carried on, beyond her family, beyond the staff, to other patients on the palliative unit. Mark, who had the unfortunate position of a bed in the hallway, expressed to me, "I saw something today that I am not okay with, and I just have to bring it up". Mark carried on to tell me he saw Laura go by in her wheelchair, talking with a visitor as she went into her room. Later, Mark observed staff and family members going in, and then witnessed the family coming out weeping. He reported seeing a stretcher leave the room, with a black cover overtop, and realized Laura had died. Mark watched her family crying, and it brought up memories of his own wife dying. He was horrified that one moment Laura was up and talking, and the next she had died. He admitted to feeling scared he would die suddenly, too. I hadn't said a word about Laura due to confidentiality, but as a patient in the hallway Mark was able to observe and hear a lot of things. He and Laura were both mobile, and over the past few days they had spoken in the patient lounge on occasion. Her death brought up many complex emotions and distress for Mark, and I felt torn on how to support him.

For myself, Laura's death was exceptionally hard to deal with. Before she died, it was difficult to interact with her in a normal way. I kept watching the clock, and counting down the days, hours and minutes till her scheduled death. I had an awkward moment of bringing in the scheduled laxative she got each morning along with her other medications, to which she responded, "really? I'm dying today, does it matter if I'm constipated?". Every interaction I had with her I felt the weight of her impending death, I wanted to scream out "don't do it! Your life has value!". But instead I bit my tongue and supported her, and then went home morally distressed, wondering if I had spoken my mind, would it have made a difference? I wanted to rip up the waiver she had signed, and plead with the doctor injecting her lethal dose not to do it. After she died and my shift was over, I went home feeling profoundly sad, and helpless at how the situation played out.

The goal of palliative care is to alleviate suffering and support patients and families until natural death, neither hastening nor prolonging death. I am upset that in Laura’s case, we had to betray our own philosophy. When euthanasia was first legalized in Canada, palliative units and hospices were exempt from having to provide MAID on site, for good reason. The whole unit feels the impact when death is chosen before it’s time. Perhaps for staff who see natural death on a regular basis, we feel the impact even more than others. We see the contrast, we know a natural death doesn’t have to be scary or painful. If a patient like Laura has a grand mal seizure, we are skilled at adapting to changing circumstances to keep her comfortable. Letting death happen at its natural hour gives families the chance to bond, and soak in every last moment loved ones have to give. Patients may think that choosing MAID relieves their family of the burden of waiting for their death, or seeing suffering. But in reality it steals time and closure, and replaces a natural process with an unsettling ending. From what I have seen, loved ones of euthanized patients appear to struggle more in their grief than loved ones of patients who die naturally.

A story like Laura’s showcases a reality of euthanasia not often spoken about. And even though this was just one example, it is not an isolated incident. There are many more stories I could’ve shared, and the impacts of euthanasia are felt far and wide with each and every case - even the ones that go as planned. My hope in telling this story is that eyes will be opened to the horrifying reality of euthanasia, and perhaps hearts and minds will be changed as well. I am a palliative care nurse, and this is my side of the story.

Wednesday, May 3, 2023

Ontario man arrested for selling suicide substance.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An Ontario man, Kenneth Law, has been arrested and charged with two counts of assisting a suicide and is known to have assisted the suicide of at least 7 people in the US and the UK.

Neha Raju and Tom Parfett
Lucas Casaletto reported for City News that:

Peel Regional Police announced the arrest of a 57-year-old Ontario man stemming from the online distribution of sodium nitrite across the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) that resulted in two deaths.

Authorities in Peel Region opened an investigation following a report from the Times of London in the United Kingdom. It mentioned that a GTA resident named Kenneth Law had been selling sodium nitrite, a legal but lethal drug, to people in the U.K. and the U.S., which resulted in seven suicides.

On March 31, officers in Peel Region began investigating the circumstances of a sudden death in Ontario. It is believed that Law distributed and marketed the substance online to target individuals at risk of self-harm.

Law was arrested by Peel police on Tuesday and charged with two counts of counselling or aiding in suicide. He appeared briefly in a Brampton court on Wednesday, where his case was put over to next week. 

An article by George Odling for the Daily Mail explains that Kenneth Law is linked to four suicide deaths in the UK including Neha Raju and Tom Parfett. Odling reported that: 

Law allegedly gave instructions about the poison to an undercover reporter posing as a suicidal customer, and boasted that some buyers had told him he was doing 'God's work'.

He claimed to have sent the poison to hundreds of buyers in Britain and pledged to continue to do so until he had exhausted his inventory - despite pleas from UK police forces and coroners.

Odling also reported that Anthony Jones, an American who also died after consuming the substance obtained from Law told his mother, as he was dying, that he wanted to live. 

Ximena Knol
Similarly, a Netherlands man was arrested on Febuary 21, 2022 in the deaths of four people who died after ingesting a suicide powder.

Ximena, who was 19 years-old, died in February 2018 after ingesting the suicide powder.
 
The Netherland Coöperatie Laatste Wil (CLW) assisted suicide group has promoted the suicide powder. The Public Prosecution Service arrested the CLW chairman, Jos van Wijk, in September 2021 for his alleged involvement in promoting and distributing the suicide powder.
 
Kenneth Law was distributing the same suicide powder as the The Netherland Coöperatie Laatste Wil (CLW) group was promoting.

EPC published an article by Randy Knol, the father of Ximena. Since then Randy has been working to ban the lethal suicide powder. Randy is the founder and chairman of the Ximena’s Butterfly Foundation.

Canada euthanasia: People are dying because they feel that they have no choice.

This article was published by Bioedge on May 2, 2023.

Michael Cook
By Michael Cook

As Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying regime expands, it is meeting more resistance. One of the most powerful criticisms, one which has surfaced often in the media, is that some people with chronic illnesses, whose death is not reasonably foreseeable, are choosing to die because social services are inadequate. They do not want to, but they feel that they have no choice. Critics say that these cases show that people are being railroaded into choosing euthanasia and are unable to make a truly autonomous choice.

All very sad and tragic and a disgraceful commentary on Canada’s social services and so on – but not a good argument against MAiD, write two bioethicists in the Journal of Medical Ethics. These patients may be disabled and they may be oppressed, but they know what they are doing and their autonomous choices must be respected:

There is every evidence that many people subjected to oppressive socioeconomic circumstances demonstrate full autonomy in the relevant ways: they understand their options, appreciate the consequences of their actions, and persist in a course of action they view as better than the alternative of continuing to live in their current circumstances. Further, treating them as though they lack autonomy replicates the kinds of harmful biases that relational theorists aim to avoid.
Denying access to MAiD to these people falls into the fallacy of “ineffective individualism about systemic problems”. In other words, we may save their lives, but they will still be living in the same miserable and unjust conditions.

“The injustice of those social conditions should lead to social reform rather than a restriction of the options of the suffering individuals involved,” write the authors in a blog post.

Loneliness is an epidemic with profound risks to health and life.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have written, in the past, about the epidemic of loneliness and isolation and explained how loneliness and isolation leads to more deaths by assisted suicide.

The US Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, released an 82 page report yesterday on loneliness and stated that half of Americans have experienced loneliness. He said that Americans are so lonely that those consequences constitute a near national health emergency.

In an interview with Amanda Seitz from the Associated Press, Murthy stated:

“We now know that loneliness is a common feeling that many people experience. It’s like hunger or thirst. It’s a feeling the body sends us when something we need for survival is missing,” Murthy told The Associated Press in an interview. “Millions of people in America are struggling in the shadows, and that’s not right. That’s why I issued this advisory to pull back the curtain on a struggle that too many people are experiencing.” 

Seitz reported that:

The loneliness epidemic is hitting young people, ages 15 to 24, especially hard. The age group reported a 70% drop in time spent with friends during the same period.

Loneliness increases the risk of premature death by nearly 30%, with the report revealing that those with poor social relationships also had a greater risk of stroke and heart disease. Isolation also elevates a person’s likelihood for experiencing depression, anxiety and dementia, according to the research. Murthy did not provide any data that illustrates how many people die directly from loneliness or isolation. 

Murthy told the Associated Press that the loneliness crisis worsened during the Covid-19 crisis with people spending on average only 20 minutes per day communicating with friends and relatives. Seitz reported that:

Technology has rapidly exacerbated the loneliness problem, with one study cited in the report finding that people who used social media for two hours or more daily were more than twice as likely to report feeling socially isolated than those who were on such apps for less than 30 minutes a day.

Murthy said social media is driving the increase in loneliness in particular. His report suggests that technology companies roll out protections for children especially around their social media behavior.

“There’s really no substitute for in-person interaction,” Murthy said. “As we shifted to use technology more and more for our communication, we lost out on a lot of that in-person interaction. How do we design technology that strengthens our relationships as opposed to weaken them?”

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is also concerned with the link between loneliness, depression and assisted suicide.

An Irish longitudinal study examined the wish to die (WTD) among 8174 patients who were over the age of 50. The study that was published in February 2021 followed participants for 6 years and found that people who had a (WTD), almost three-quarters reported being lonely and 60% had clinically significant depressive symptoms.

Sadly many people who die by assisted suicide are experiencing a wish to die which is closely associated with loneliness and depression. Most of those who experience depressive symptoms are not being treated for their condition.