A neurologist from New York has agreed to testify as a medical expert on behalf of the family of Samuel Golubchuk an Orthodox Jewish man from Winnipeg Canada.
Dr. Leon Zacharowicz agreed to work on the case pro-bono after being contacted by Agudath Israel of America. Dr. Zacharowicz is planning to go to Winnipeg sometime this summer to examine Golubchuk himself in preparation for the trial that is currently scheduled for November 2008.
Dr. Edward Reichman, a leading expert and lecturer in the field of medical ethics stated that according to Jewish ethics "If a person’s life is dependent on the ventilator, the decision to take them off the ventilator would be equal to homicide"
Dr. Reichman further stated to The Jewish Star that "The overwhelming majority of rabbinic authorities maintain that it would be prohibited to remove the respirator, if that would lead to the individual’s death."
Dr. Reichman predicts that "This case could be a real test case. It could become a terrible trend if it gets pushed through. It would be a tragedy, definitely for Orthodox Jews, but also for other patients. If it gets passed in Canada, it can succeed in the United States as well."
http://www.vosizneias.com/16520/2008/05/28/winnipeg-canada-ny-doctor-to-testify-in-favor-of-sustaining-life-support-for-orthodox-patient/
Friday, May 30, 2008
Euthanasia Bill passes California Assembly
Bill AB 2747 passed in the California Assembly by a vote of 42 to 34.
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_9424815
This bill is a thinly veiled attempt to remove opposition to euthanasia by omission in California and is promoted as a bill that promotes palliative care options and end-of-life care information.
http://www.sunherald.com/447/story/592749.html
Nobody opposes good palliative care initiatives and information, but this bill mandates that a person who is given a one year life-expectancy will be informed and given the medical support to be intentionally dehydrated to death by the means of terminal sedation and dehydration.
If a physician is morally opposed to terminally sedation and dehydration of a person who is not actively dying or experiencing uncontrolled physical pain (euthanasia by omission), that physician is mandated to refer the patient to a physician who is willing to intentionally dehydrate the patient.
Bill AB 2747 represents the new strategy for Compassion & Choices, the leading euthanasia lobby group in the US.
Compassion & Choices has worked tirelessly in the past few years to legalize assisted suicide in California without success.
By mandating that palliative care become abused by the promotion of terminal sedation and dehydration for those who are not actively dying or suffering uncontrolled pain, they will achieve a significant part of their final goal of legalizing euthanasia.
For more information go to
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/05/toward-honest-talk.html
To intentionally cause death by dehydration is not assisted suicide but rather euthanasia.
Assisted suicide means that a person knowingly provides the means for someone to kill themselves. Death by dehydration requires a direct and active involvement in the death of the person and not simply a provision of the means.
Bill AB 2747 is simply unnecessary. The use of terminal sedation for people who are actively dying or experiencing intractable pain is considered an ethical option by nearly everyone. Access to good palliative care information and services are not legislative issues but rather budgetary issues.
This bill is about mandating the right to die by dehydration for people who are not near to death and who are not suffering from intractable pain.
This means that people who want to legalize euthanasia are in fact settling for half of their final goal with the hope that once death by dehydration becomes a common procedure, people will then demand death by injection because it is in fact a more compassionate way to die.
Californians need to recognize what Bill AB 2747 represents and strenuously oppose it.
A similar bill is also being debated in Vermont.
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_9424815
This bill is a thinly veiled attempt to remove opposition to euthanasia by omission in California and is promoted as a bill that promotes palliative care options and end-of-life care information.
http://www.sunherald.com/447/story/592749.html
Nobody opposes good palliative care initiatives and information, but this bill mandates that a person who is given a one year life-expectancy will be informed and given the medical support to be intentionally dehydrated to death by the means of terminal sedation and dehydration.
If a physician is morally opposed to terminally sedation and dehydration of a person who is not actively dying or experiencing uncontrolled physical pain (euthanasia by omission), that physician is mandated to refer the patient to a physician who is willing to intentionally dehydrate the patient.
Bill AB 2747 represents the new strategy for Compassion & Choices, the leading euthanasia lobby group in the US.
Compassion & Choices has worked tirelessly in the past few years to legalize assisted suicide in California without success.
By mandating that palliative care become abused by the promotion of terminal sedation and dehydration for those who are not actively dying or suffering uncontrolled pain, they will achieve a significant part of their final goal of legalizing euthanasia.
For more information go to
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/05/toward-honest-talk.html
To intentionally cause death by dehydration is not assisted suicide but rather euthanasia.
Assisted suicide means that a person knowingly provides the means for someone to kill themselves. Death by dehydration requires a direct and active involvement in the death of the person and not simply a provision of the means.
Bill AB 2747 is simply unnecessary. The use of terminal sedation for people who are actively dying or experiencing intractable pain is considered an ethical option by nearly everyone. Access to good palliative care information and services are not legislative issues but rather budgetary issues.
This bill is about mandating the right to die by dehydration for people who are not near to death and who are not suffering from intractable pain.
This means that people who want to legalize euthanasia are in fact settling for half of their final goal with the hope that once death by dehydration becomes a common procedure, people will then demand death by injection because it is in fact a more compassionate way to die.
Californians need to recognize what Bill AB 2747 represents and strenuously oppose it.
A similar bill is also being debated in Vermont.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Suicide Tourists dying at Dignitas clinic in Switzerland
The Dignitas suicide clinic in Switzerland helped to kill 335 suicidal people in the past two years with 85 percent of them being foreigners.
Ludwig Minelli, the director of the Dignitas suicide clinic in Zurich has recently released his statistics on the number of deaths at the Dignitias clinic.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1216810.ece
The Dignitas clinic admits to charging approximately 5000 British pounds (approximately $10,000) to assist the suicide of their clients. One must first pay a membership fee to Dignitas before they will consider assisting a persons suicide. Of course it has nothing to do with money.
Minelli stated that 50 percent of the deaths are German suicide tourists with the British and the French making up the next two most common nationalities to die at the clinic.
Dignitas has been involved with suicides in vans, similar to the acts by Dr. Kevorkian, and they currently employ the plastic bag and helium method. They began the bag and helium method to avoid the need to receive approval from a physician who would write the lethal prescription.
Recently the Swiss court approved a case of assisting a suicide of a person who was chronically depressed and not physically dying.
Previous comments by Wesley
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2007/04/dignitas-to-finish-hate-crime-with.html
http://discardedlies.com/entry/?15281_
Doctors in Switzerland have compared the methods used by Dignitas to those that were used by the Nazi’s.
Some say that this is not a fair comparison because the Nazi’s weren’t concerned about the choice of the victim, but since when have depressed and suicidal people freely chose death.
It is imperative that countries support suicide prevention strategies for their most vulnerable citizens whom Minelli and his Dignitas team are preying on.
We must recognize that a caring society protects its vulnerable citizens at their greatest time of need.
Ludwig Minelli, the director of the Dignitas suicide clinic in Zurich has recently released his statistics on the number of deaths at the Dignitias clinic.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1216810.ece
The Dignitas clinic admits to charging approximately 5000 British pounds (approximately $10,000) to assist the suicide of their clients. One must first pay a membership fee to Dignitas before they will consider assisting a persons suicide. Of course it has nothing to do with money.
Minelli stated that 50 percent of the deaths are German suicide tourists with the British and the French making up the next two most common nationalities to die at the clinic.
Dignitas has been involved with suicides in vans, similar to the acts by Dr. Kevorkian, and they currently employ the plastic bag and helium method. They began the bag and helium method to avoid the need to receive approval from a physician who would write the lethal prescription.
Recently the Swiss court approved a case of assisting a suicide of a person who was chronically depressed and not physically dying.
Previous comments by Wesley
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2007/04/dignitas-to-finish-hate-crime-with.html
http://discardedlies.com/entry/?15281_
Doctors in Switzerland have compared the methods used by Dignitas to those that were used by the Nazi’s.
Some say that this is not a fair comparison because the Nazi’s weren’t concerned about the choice of the victim, but since when have depressed and suicidal people freely chose death.
It is imperative that countries support suicide prevention strategies for their most vulnerable citizens whom Minelli and his Dignitas team are preying on.
We must recognize that a caring society protects its vulnerable citizens at their greatest time of need.
Japan looks to lower suicide rate
Japan is reviewing its guidelines aimed at reducing the number of suicides in Japan and hopes to reduce the suicide rate by 20 percent by 2016.
http://www.bloomberg.com:80/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=a_2Lhi9MAfY0&refer=japan
Japan has been plagued by more than 30,000 suicide deaths each year over the past 10 years. According to the United Nations they have the 9th highest suicide rate in the world.
Recently the Japanese government asked internet providers to block websites that promote suicide and suicide methods, such as hydrogen sulphide on the internet after their was a rash of suicides committed using these techniques in the past few months. http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/05/internet-providers-urged-to-remove.html
Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura said "It's outrageous that something that seems to promote suicide is widely available on the Internet. There is freedom of expression but it must be accompanied by responsibility. These things shouldn't go unregulated."
The Australian government passed a law prohibiting the promotion and counseling of suicide on the internet a few years ago in response to the work of Dr. Philip Nitschke, the Australian Dr. Death, who was providing suicide and counseling people to commit suicide via the internet.
All western nations need laws that protect vulnerable depressed and mentally incompetent people from falling victim to the euthanasia lobby who are promoting suicide (right to die) as a human right.
http://www.bloomberg.com:80/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=a_2Lhi9MAfY0&refer=japan
Japan has been plagued by more than 30,000 suicide deaths each year over the past 10 years. According to the United Nations they have the 9th highest suicide rate in the world.
Recently the Japanese government asked internet providers to block websites that promote suicide and suicide methods, such as hydrogen sulphide on the internet after their was a rash of suicides committed using these techniques in the past few months. http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/05/internet-providers-urged-to-remove.html
Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura said "It's outrageous that something that seems to promote suicide is widely available on the Internet. There is freedom of expression but it must be accompanied by responsibility. These things shouldn't go unregulated."
The Australian government passed a law prohibiting the promotion and counseling of suicide on the internet a few years ago in response to the work of Dr. Philip Nitschke, the Australian Dr. Death, who was providing suicide and counseling people to commit suicide via the internet.
All western nations need laws that protect vulnerable depressed and mentally incompetent people from falling victim to the euthanasia lobby who are promoting suicide (right to die) as a human right.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Families encouraged to let "unresponsive" loved ones die
The recent Australian guidelines on withdrawing medical treatment from people in a "unresponsive" state will not only encourage families to withdraw medical treatment from their family members but also to deny them basic care provisions. http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23755540-952,00.html
The guidelines will encourage families to withdraw basic care such as tube feeding from their "unresponsive" loved one’s. When tube feeding is withdrawn from a person who is cognitively disabled and appears unresponsive, but who is not otherwise dying or nearing death, then the cause of death will be death by dehydration, or in other-words death by euthanasia by omission.
It should be considered optional to withdraw or withhold medical treatment that is risky, intrusive, destructive, exhausting, painful or repugnant or when the cost outweighs benefit or success, or when the treatment is literally futile.
But, medical care such as the provision of fluids and food by tube should be considered obligatory so long as the patient is physiologically benefitting from the care or until the person is imminently dying.
In order for everyone to be treated as an equal citizen, society needs to recognize the dignity of each human being, even when they: live with permanent physical or cognitive disabilities and unable to effectively communicate with others.
The new Australian guidelines encourage physicians and family members to treat people who are patients in post-coma unresponsiveness (PCU) and a minimally responsive state (MRS) differently than other people.
I think that this is a huge step towards future policies that will include the elimination of people with cognitive disabilities who will already be treated without equality and already viewed as expendable.
The guidelines will encourage families to withdraw basic care such as tube feeding from their "unresponsive" loved one’s. When tube feeding is withdrawn from a person who is cognitively disabled and appears unresponsive, but who is not otherwise dying or nearing death, then the cause of death will be death by dehydration, or in other-words death by euthanasia by omission.
It should be considered optional to withdraw or withhold medical treatment that is risky, intrusive, destructive, exhausting, painful or repugnant or when the cost outweighs benefit or success, or when the treatment is literally futile.
But, medical care such as the provision of fluids and food by tube should be considered obligatory so long as the patient is physiologically benefitting from the care or until the person is imminently dying.
In order for everyone to be treated as an equal citizen, society needs to recognize the dignity of each human being, even when they: live with permanent physical or cognitive disabilities and unable to effectively communicate with others.
The new Australian guidelines encourage physicians and family members to treat people who are patients in post-coma unresponsiveness (PCU) and a minimally responsive state (MRS) differently than other people.
I think that this is a huge step towards future policies that will include the elimination of people with cognitive disabilities who will already be treated without equality and already viewed as expendable.
Monday, May 26, 2008
When does death occur?
The recent story of Val Thomas (59) who awoke after having no brain waves for 17 hours, experiencing two cardiac arrests, and Rigor mortis began to set in.
The Thomas case opens new questions as to when we can be certain that death has occured.
What is really interesting is that Thomas awoke 10 minutes after the family discussed the prospect of Thomas being an organ donor, they said their goodbyes and removed all the tubes.
Read more about the story and watch the video links at:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357463,00.html
The Thomas case opens new questions as to when we can be certain that death has occured.
What is really interesting is that Thomas awoke 10 minutes after the family discussed the prospect of Thomas being an organ donor, they said their goodbyes and removed all the tubes.
Read more about the story and watch the video links at:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357463,00.html
Toward Honest Talk
I read an excellent article by Marilyn Golden in the Capitol Weekly online explaining why California's Bill AB 2747 that is sponsored by Patti Berg needs to be defeated.
Marilyn Golden is a Policy Analyst at the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) which is the leading center on policy and law in relation to disability rights in the U.S.
Golden effectively explains how AB 2747 represents a change in strategy for the euthanasia lobby group compassion and choices (C & C). C & C have made several attempts to legalize assisted suicide since 2005.
Bill AB 2747 is designed to pave the way for the legalization of assisted suicide in California.
As a point of interest, there is a similar bill in Vermont that is also being sponsored by the euthanasia lobby groups.
Please go to the article by Golden at:
http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_adctlid=v%7Cjq2q43wvsl855o%7Cx57q8rve5v4bj2&issueId=x4tyolqkrlw0m0&xid=x4u6470wbq8h4b
Marilyn Golden is a Policy Analyst at the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) which is the leading center on policy and law in relation to disability rights in the U.S.
Golden effectively explains how AB 2747 represents a change in strategy for the euthanasia lobby group compassion and choices (C & C). C & C have made several attempts to legalize assisted suicide since 2005.
Bill AB 2747 is designed to pave the way for the legalization of assisted suicide in California.
As a point of interest, there is a similar bill in Vermont that is also being sponsored by the euthanasia lobby groups.
Please go to the article by Golden at:
http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_adctlid=v%7Cjq2q43wvsl855o%7Cx57q8rve5v4bj2&issueId=x4tyolqkrlw0m0&xid=x4u6470wbq8h4b
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Nazi doctor receives medical award
Dr. Hans-Joachim Sewering, a 92-year-old german physician has been honored for performing unequalled service in the cause of freedom of the practice and the independence of the medical profession, and to the nation’s health system by the German Federation of Internal Medicine.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=267a801e-2b52-42d7-b06e-1d27f3dabf24
The Anti-Defamation League in the U.S. claims that Sewering sent up to 900 children to their death at a euthanasia centre. Sewering has admitted being a member of the SS, but he has denied being responsible for euthanasia deaths.
These cases are very important because they remind us that people are capable of doing horrific acts to other human beings.
Society likes to believe that these horrific acts only happened because of the Nazi regime that controlled Germany, but the reality is that Hitler wasn’t ordering these deaths, physicians were ordering these deaths. Hitler only gave them permission.
Whether Sewering is partly responsible for 900 deaths or not, it is clear that in the long-term, the primary victims of euthanasia will be people with disabilities and other vulnerable persons who will either be subtly coerced into accepting death or killed out of indifference.
People who lack equality, also will lack the necessary ability to effectively resist the culture of death.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=267a801e-2b52-42d7-b06e-1d27f3dabf24
The Anti-Defamation League in the U.S. claims that Sewering sent up to 900 children to their death at a euthanasia centre. Sewering has admitted being a member of the SS, but he has denied being responsible for euthanasia deaths.
These cases are very important because they remind us that people are capable of doing horrific acts to other human beings.
Society likes to believe that these horrific acts only happened because of the Nazi regime that controlled Germany, but the reality is that Hitler wasn’t ordering these deaths, physicians were ordering these deaths. Hitler only gave them permission.
Whether Sewering is partly responsible for 900 deaths or not, it is clear that in the long-term, the primary victims of euthanasia will be people with disabilities and other vulnerable persons who will either be subtly coerced into accepting death or killed out of indifference.
People who lack equality, also will lack the necessary ability to effectively resist the culture of death.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
54 ill as new toxic fume suicide hits Japan
CNN news has reported about a suicide case in Japan that resulted in 54 people becoming sick from the toxic fumes related to the suicide concoction that was composed of a liquid pesticide.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/22/toxic.suicide/?iref=hpmostpop
Earlier this month a 24 year old man committed suicide by mixing laundry detergent and cleaning fluids.
In April, a 14 year old girl used the same method to commit suicide, resulting in 90 neighbors becoming sick from the toxic fumes.
CNN reported that:
"The suicides are seen as part of a spate of detergent-related deaths that experts say have been encouraged by Internet suicide sites since last summer.
Seiji Yoshikawa, deputy head of the Internet Hot Line, which operates under the guidelines of police, said the number of sites promoting detergent suicides soared in April.
"They are rife on the Internet. Writing examples include 'you can die easily and beautifully' and 'this is much easier than charcoal-burning suicide,'" Yoshikawa said, referring to a once-popular suicide method, The Associated Press reported.'
On May 1, I reported about a call for internet providers in Japan to block access to suicide websites in relation to the surge in suicides in Japan.
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/05/internet-providers-urged-to-remove.html
Governments on a world-wide basis need to enact laws to shut down websites that promote and counsel people to commit suicide in order to protect the vulnerable depressed and mentally ill people who are using these websites.
Websites that promote child pornography are effectively being shut down due to laws that have been enacted to protect children. In the same way we need to shut down websites that promote suicide.
Dr. Philip Nitschke, the Australian Dr. Death and the visible leader of the Right to Die lobby in Australia, has been involved in suicide counseling via the internet for many years. The Right to Die is not about dignity with dignity, it is about creating a universal "right to die".
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200609/INT20060912a.html
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23633391-2,00.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/22/toxic.suicide/?iref=hpmostpop
Earlier this month a 24 year old man committed suicide by mixing laundry detergent and cleaning fluids.
In April, a 14 year old girl used the same method to commit suicide, resulting in 90 neighbors becoming sick from the toxic fumes.
CNN reported that:
"The suicides are seen as part of a spate of detergent-related deaths that experts say have been encouraged by Internet suicide sites since last summer.
Seiji Yoshikawa, deputy head of the Internet Hot Line, which operates under the guidelines of police, said the number of sites promoting detergent suicides soared in April.
"They are rife on the Internet. Writing examples include 'you can die easily and beautifully' and 'this is much easier than charcoal-burning suicide,'" Yoshikawa said, referring to a once-popular suicide method, The Associated Press reported.'
On May 1, I reported about a call for internet providers in Japan to block access to suicide websites in relation to the surge in suicides in Japan.
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/05/internet-providers-urged-to-remove.html
Governments on a world-wide basis need to enact laws to shut down websites that promote and counsel people to commit suicide in order to protect the vulnerable depressed and mentally ill people who are using these websites.
Websites that promote child pornography are effectively being shut down due to laws that have been enacted to protect children. In the same way we need to shut down websites that promote suicide.
Dr. Philip Nitschke, the Australian Dr. Death and the visible leader of the Right to Die lobby in Australia, has been involved in suicide counseling via the internet for many years. The Right to Die is not about dignity with dignity, it is about creating a universal "right to die".
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200609/INT20060912a.html
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23633391-2,00.html
Latimer's 'cause' is a real threat
There was an article about Robert Latimer in yesterday’s National Post in Canada. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=528343
Robert Latimer is the Canadian farmer from Saskatchewan who killed his 12 year-old daughter Tracy in 1993 because she was “suffering” from cerebral palsy. Latimer has become a media celebrity over the years.
He was recently released on day-parole and has decided to live in Ottawa where he can agitate for his cause with the government representatives.
Today a letter appeared in the National Post that is written by Deiren Masterson from Toronto, that truly puts the Latimer case in perspective. http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=530493
Masterson writes
When Rebecca Beayni -- a 25-year-old living with cerebral palsy who is unable to talk or walk -- was awarded the city of Toronto Young Adult Award for Social Justice last year, there wasn't a mention of it in the Post. And to quote this article, Tracy Latimer “functioned at the level of a three-month-old.” So does this mean that three-month-olds are expendable too?
I have a friend, Michael, with Tracy's condition, a man with severe cerebral palsy whom doctors predicted wouldn't live past 10 -- he's now 36. He needs care in all aspects of life. He eats with a feeding tube. He has a particular love of music. Six years ago he danced for Pope John Paul II in front of an audience of millions. He's living a deeply meaningful life.
I’m able-bodied and able-minded, just like your reporters. With these tools I'm writing for my friends Rebecca and Michael, against the threat that Robert Latimer’s “cause" poses to them and those whom their lives represent. My message to your readers: Wake up!
Robert Latimer is the Canadian farmer from Saskatchewan who killed his 12 year-old daughter Tracy in 1993 because she was “suffering” from cerebral palsy. Latimer has become a media celebrity over the years.
He was recently released on day-parole and has decided to live in Ottawa where he can agitate for his cause with the government representatives.
Today a letter appeared in the National Post that is written by Deiren Masterson from Toronto, that truly puts the Latimer case in perspective. http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=530493
Masterson writes
When Rebecca Beayni -- a 25-year-old living with cerebral palsy who is unable to talk or walk -- was awarded the city of Toronto Young Adult Award for Social Justice last year, there wasn't a mention of it in the Post. And to quote this article, Tracy Latimer “functioned at the level of a three-month-old.” So does this mean that three-month-olds are expendable too?
I have a friend, Michael, with Tracy's condition, a man with severe cerebral palsy whom doctors predicted wouldn't live past 10 -- he's now 36. He needs care in all aspects of life. He eats with a feeding tube. He has a particular love of music. Six years ago he danced for Pope John Paul II in front of an audience of millions. He's living a deeply meaningful life.
I’m able-bodied and able-minded, just like your reporters. With these tools I'm writing for my friends Rebecca and Michael, against the threat that Robert Latimer’s “cause" poses to them and those whom their lives represent. My message to your readers: Wake up!
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Alleged suicide job shocks campaigners
A New Zealand news agency is suggesting that leaders on both sides of the euthanasia debate are surprised that an American woman using the name Susan Wilson was paid $12,000to fly to New Zealand and assist the death of a woman suffering from depression. http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1786504
As the long-time leader of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition in Canada and now the International chair, I am neither surprised or shocked by this news.
In September 2006, I attended the World Federation of Right to Die Societies bi-annual conference in Toronto. During the proceedings of that conference, it was apparent that the end-goal for the euthanasia lobby was the acceptance of the "last-will-pill" or the peaceful pill.
Dr. Rob Jonquiere, the moderate leader of the Right to Die movement in the Netherlands explained that by taking the law in their own hands that activists were making it more difficult for politicians to accept the final goal - the acceptance of the "last-will-pill". When you analyze the concept of a last-will-pill you must agree that there is no way to protect people who are depressed or mentally incompetent from killing themselves with this pill.
We already know that the Supreme Court in the Netherlands approved euthanasia for people who are experiencing chronic depression or chronic mental suffering.
Dr. Philip Nitschke, who is the maverick Australian leader of Exit International promoted the peaceful pill that allegedly could be available to anyone at anytime.
Several years ago Wesley Smith reported comments by Nitschke in an article titled "Noxious Nitschke" stating that the "peaceful pill" could be available to troubled teens. http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200411150826.asp
The question for the euthanasia lobby is not that they oppose euthanasia or assisted suicide for people who suffer depression, the question is how will the public knowledge of their support for these acts affect their campaign to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide everywhere?
Finally, if there is nothing wrong with assisted suicide then why should assisting a suicide be done for free. Susan Wilson had to fly to New Zealand and accept the chance that she might be arrested for her actions.
Maybe the real shock is that someone would pay her $12,000 and the other members of the euthanasia lobby feel that they are being under paid.
As the long-time leader of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition in Canada and now the International chair, I am neither surprised or shocked by this news.
In September 2006, I attended the World Federation of Right to Die Societies bi-annual conference in Toronto. During the proceedings of that conference, it was apparent that the end-goal for the euthanasia lobby was the acceptance of the "last-will-pill" or the peaceful pill.
Dr. Rob Jonquiere, the moderate leader of the Right to Die movement in the Netherlands explained that by taking the law in their own hands that activists were making it more difficult for politicians to accept the final goal - the acceptance of the "last-will-pill". When you analyze the concept of a last-will-pill you must agree that there is no way to protect people who are depressed or mentally incompetent from killing themselves with this pill.
We already know that the Supreme Court in the Netherlands approved euthanasia for people who are experiencing chronic depression or chronic mental suffering.
Dr. Philip Nitschke, who is the maverick Australian leader of Exit International promoted the peaceful pill that allegedly could be available to anyone at anytime.
Several years ago Wesley Smith reported comments by Nitschke in an article titled "Noxious Nitschke" stating that the "peaceful pill" could be available to troubled teens. http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200411150826.asp
The question for the euthanasia lobby is not that they oppose euthanasia or assisted suicide for people who suffer depression, the question is how will the public knowledge of their support for these acts affect their campaign to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide everywhere?
Finally, if there is nothing wrong with assisted suicide then why should assisting a suicide be done for free. Susan Wilson had to fly to New Zealand and accept the chance that she might be arrested for her actions.
Maybe the real shock is that someone would pay her $12,000 and the other members of the euthanasia lobby feel that they are being under paid.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Washington State lawmakers oppose assisted suicide
http://www.tdn.com/articles/2008/05/20/breaking_news/doc483318d29f55d128012543.txt
The Daily News Online serving the Lower Columbia in Washington state reported today on the widespread political opposition to Initiative 1000, the Washington state plebiscite to legalize assisted suicide.
Democrat State Senator Margarita Prentice stated “It has virtually no protection for low-income and vulnerable people from being pressured into prematurely ending their life,”
Prentice, a registered nurse and chairwoman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee believes that “This very dangerous initiative never would have passed the legislature”
Republican representative Lynn Schindler stated that “Voters should realize that 25 states around the country have rejected this kind of dangerous proposal.”
Schindler warned people that “Under Initiative 1000, persons who are ill could feel pressured by organizations to end their own lives to escape the financial burden”
19 republican and 4 Democrat law makers have united to oppose Initiative 1000.
Washington Governor Chris Gregoire also opposes the measure. She said: “I find it on a personal level very, very difficult to support assisted suicide.”
The Coalition Against Assisted Suicide is particularly concerned about two provisions in the initiative:
• It does not require terminally ill patients to undergo a mental health evaluation before obtaining lethal drugs; even those with depression can seek assisted suicide.
• The family members of the patient need not be given notice of the patient’s intent.
Sen. Prentice said there is a danger that “physicians can prescribe lethal drugs to patients who are depressed or mentally ill.
In 2007, according to the Oregon Department of Health, not one patient in Oregon, where assisted suicide was legalized by plebiscite, was referred for psychological counseling, a sure sign to me there is nothing to protect those suffering psychological distress.”
The Daily News Online serving the Lower Columbia in Washington state reported today on the widespread political opposition to Initiative 1000, the Washington state plebiscite to legalize assisted suicide.
Democrat State Senator Margarita Prentice stated “It has virtually no protection for low-income and vulnerable people from being pressured into prematurely ending their life,”
Prentice, a registered nurse and chairwoman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee believes that “This very dangerous initiative never would have passed the legislature”
Republican representative Lynn Schindler stated that “Voters should realize that 25 states around the country have rejected this kind of dangerous proposal.”
Schindler warned people that “Under Initiative 1000, persons who are ill could feel pressured by organizations to end their own lives to escape the financial burden”
19 republican and 4 Democrat law makers have united to oppose Initiative 1000.
Washington Governor Chris Gregoire also opposes the measure. She said: “I find it on a personal level very, very difficult to support assisted suicide.”
The Coalition Against Assisted Suicide is particularly concerned about two provisions in the initiative:
• It does not require terminally ill patients to undergo a mental health evaluation before obtaining lethal drugs; even those with depression can seek assisted suicide.
• The family members of the patient need not be given notice of the patient’s intent.
Sen. Prentice said there is a danger that “physicians can prescribe lethal drugs to patients who are depressed or mentally ill.
In 2007, according to the Oregon Department of Health, not one patient in Oregon, where assisted suicide was legalized by plebiscite, was referred for psychological counseling, a sure sign to me there is nothing to protect those suffering psychological distress.”
Friday, May 16, 2008
Euthanasia Advocates fail to distance themselves from Exoo.
On Monday, May 12, 2008 my blog covered the issue of George Exoo and the recent film that has been made about him by film maker Jon Ronson.
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/05/i-made-it-look-like-they-died-in-their.html
Ronson explained that he got the idea of making a film about Exoo after the death of Rosemary Toole. The Ronson exposeé proves that Exoo will assist the suicide of people who are depressed, mentally ill and not terminally ill.
Today Dr. Libby Wilson responded to the Exoo debacle in the guardian newspaper. Wilson explains that “it is by unfortunate associations that the member societies of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies are lumped together with loose cannons such as Rev George Exoo.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/society/2008/may/15/mentalhealth.health
The reality is that the Rev George Exoo finds his victims through the member societies of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies.
In September 2006, I attended the World Federation of Right to Die Societies conference in Toronto. One of the speakers was Dr. Philip Nitschke. Nitschke was there to promote the idea of the “peaceful” pill that could be used by anyone when they are “tired of living”.
Maybe Nitschke is just another loose cannon but the member societies of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies didn’t distance themselves from his comments.
A volunteer with the Compassion & Choices client support program explained that she “believes the cost for medical technology is often a waste of money.” She said “She became a volunteer because she wants to hasten her own death.”
This woman was a mainstream volunteer for Compassion & Choices.
Exoo is more extreme than the other Right to Die lobby, but he is only more extreme by degree, not because of his actions.
The Right to Die lobby is a death cult.
The only really difference between the mainstream lobby and the work of George Exoo is the strategy they have set to achieve their agenda.
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/05/i-made-it-look-like-they-died-in-their.html
Ronson explained that he got the idea of making a film about Exoo after the death of Rosemary Toole. The Ronson exposeé proves that Exoo will assist the suicide of people who are depressed, mentally ill and not terminally ill.
Today Dr. Libby Wilson responded to the Exoo debacle in the guardian newspaper. Wilson explains that “it is by unfortunate associations that the member societies of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies are lumped together with loose cannons such as Rev George Exoo.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/society/2008/may/15/mentalhealth.health
The reality is that the Rev George Exoo finds his victims through the member societies of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies.
In September 2006, I attended the World Federation of Right to Die Societies conference in Toronto. One of the speakers was Dr. Philip Nitschke. Nitschke was there to promote the idea of the “peaceful” pill that could be used by anyone when they are “tired of living”.
Maybe Nitschke is just another loose cannon but the member societies of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies didn’t distance themselves from his comments.
A volunteer with the Compassion & Choices client support program explained that she “believes the cost for medical technology is often a waste of money.” She said “She became a volunteer because she wants to hasten her own death.”
This woman was a mainstream volunteer for Compassion & Choices.
Exoo is more extreme than the other Right to Die lobby, but he is only more extreme by degree, not because of his actions.
The Right to Die lobby is a death cult.
The only really difference between the mainstream lobby and the work of George Exoo is the strategy they have set to achieve their agenda.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Oregon's Trojan Horse
Go to http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/trojanhorse.htm to read the article written by Rita Marker, an attorney and the executive director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.
This article explains why Oregon, the only State in the US to legalize assisted suicide, has not expanded the parameters of the law.
This article also explains why the I-1000 campaign to legalize assisted suicide by plebiscite in Washington State is so important.
This analysis should encourage you to support the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide in Washington State - http://noassistedsuicide.com/
This article explains why Oregon, the only State in the US to legalize assisted suicide, has not expanded the parameters of the law.
This article also explains why the I-1000 campaign to legalize assisted suicide by plebiscite in Washington State is so important.
This analysis should encourage you to support the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide in Washington State - http://noassistedsuicide.com/
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) in Oregon:
Dr. Herbert Hendin and Dr. Kathleen Foley have written a thorough report on the experience in Oregon after 10 years of legal assisted suicide.
Hendin is a Professor of Psychiatry and the Chief Executive Officer and Medical Director of Suicide Prevention International.
Foley is a Professor of Neurology, Neuroscience, and Clinical Pharmacology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University and the Medical Director, International Palliative Care Initiative of the Open Society Institute.
Hendin and Foley examine the Oregon experience based on case studies and research articles. They make recommendations to the Oregon Public Health Division (OPHD) as to how they could ensure that patients are properly protected under the law.
For instance, the case of Helen proved that the law is not effectively protecting patients when they are experiencing depression.
Helen’s personal physician refused to assist in her suicide but didn’t offer specific reasons. A second physician refused to assist Helen in suicide on the grounds that Helen was depressed.
Helen’s husband then called Compassion in Dying (now Compassion & Choices) who referred Helen to a physician who assisted her suicide.
Barbara Coombs Lee, then the executive director of Compassion in Dying stated “‘If I get rebuffed by one doctor, I can go to another...’”
The physician who assisted the suicide for Helen regretted his minimal communication with the physicians who refused to assist Helen’s suicide and stated “Had I felt there was a disagreement among the physicians about my patient’s eligibility, I would not have written the prescription.”
The article also examines the contention that palliative care has improved in Oregon since the implementation of assisted suicide.
Hendin and Foley provide information that contradicts this assessment. They state that
“A Study at the Oregon Health & Science University indicated that there has been a greater percentage of cases of inadequately treated pain in terminally ill patients since the Oregon law went into effect. However, among patients who requested PAS but availed themselves of a substantive intervention by a physician, 46% changed their minds about having PAS.”
Hendin and Foley bring up significant concerns about the correlation between depression and assisted suicide. They show that “researchers have found hopelessness, which is strongly correlated with depression, to be the factor that most significantly predicts the wish for death.”
A guidebook for health care professionals that is written by the Oregon University Center for Ethics advises physicians to refer all cases requesting assisted suicide for psychiatric evaluation, even though the physician is only required to refer patients that are suspected to be experiencing depression or mental a psychological disorder.
The reality is that only 13% of assisted suicide requests were referred for a psychiatric evaluation between 1998 - 2005 and no-one was referred for a psychiatric evaluation out of the 49 assisted suicide deaths in 2007.
It is also concerning that under the Oregon law the psychiatric assessment is only required to determine if the person has the capacity to decide. A person could be depressed and yet considered capable to consent to death.
The Oregon law doesn’t protect the person from being pressured. Kate Cheney’s case illustrates that even though Cheney was sent for a psychiatric assessment with the first psychiatrist suggesting that she was not capable of consenting, a second psychiatrist determined Cheney could consent even though it was noted that Cheney’s daughter appeared more interested in her suicide than Cheney herself.
Hendin and Foley suggest that this case questions what value Oregon’s prohibition on coercion really has.
Hendin and Foley also investigated the “lack of teeth” in the reporting system in Oregon. The OPHD have not addressed the issue of non-reporting, even though in the Netherlands and Belgium the issue of non-reporting is significant. The OPHD appear to be more concerned with patient-doctor confidentiality than with monitoring compliance or abuse.
The OPHD have admitted that they have no way of knowing how may assisted suicide cases are not reported.
The role of the assisted suicide advocacy group Compassion and Choices must be questioned. Compassion and Choices have been directly involved in 73% of all assisted suicide deaths in Oregon.
In 2006 Compassion and Choices lobbied the OPHD by threatening legal action if OPHD didn’t change the term assisted suicide to a term which was more palatable. The term assisted suicide has now been replaced by Death with Dignity.
How can the OPHD assure people that the law is being followed when the assisted suicide lobby group is also the referral agency for the majority of the assisted suicide deaths in Oregon.
Hendin and Foley conclude that “As the Oregon assisted suicide law is currently implemented, “Death with Dignity Act” is something of a misnomer.”
To receive a copy of the article - Physician-Assisted Suicide in Oregon: A Medical Perspective by Herbert Hendin and Kathleen Foley, simply contact Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at - 1-877-439-3348and request the article and we will send it to you.
http://www.spiorg.org/publications/HendinFoley_MichiganLawReview.pdf
Hendin is a Professor of Psychiatry and the Chief Executive Officer and Medical Director of Suicide Prevention International.
Foley is a Professor of Neurology, Neuroscience, and Clinical Pharmacology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University and the Medical Director, International Palliative Care Initiative of the Open Society Institute.
Hendin and Foley examine the Oregon experience based on case studies and research articles. They make recommendations to the Oregon Public Health Division (OPHD) as to how they could ensure that patients are properly protected under the law.
For instance, the case of Helen proved that the law is not effectively protecting patients when they are experiencing depression.
Helen’s personal physician refused to assist in her suicide but didn’t offer specific reasons. A second physician refused to assist Helen in suicide on the grounds that Helen was depressed.
Helen’s husband then called Compassion in Dying (now Compassion & Choices) who referred Helen to a physician who assisted her suicide.
Barbara Coombs Lee, then the executive director of Compassion in Dying stated “‘If I get rebuffed by one doctor, I can go to another...’”
The physician who assisted the suicide for Helen regretted his minimal communication with the physicians who refused to assist Helen’s suicide and stated “Had I felt there was a disagreement among the physicians about my patient’s eligibility, I would not have written the prescription.”
The article also examines the contention that palliative care has improved in Oregon since the implementation of assisted suicide.
Hendin and Foley provide information that contradicts this assessment. They state that
“A Study at the Oregon Health & Science University indicated that there has been a greater percentage of cases of inadequately treated pain in terminally ill patients since the Oregon law went into effect. However, among patients who requested PAS but availed themselves of a substantive intervention by a physician, 46% changed their minds about having PAS.”
Hendin and Foley bring up significant concerns about the correlation between depression and assisted suicide. They show that “researchers have found hopelessness, which is strongly correlated with depression, to be the factor that most significantly predicts the wish for death.”
A guidebook for health care professionals that is written by the Oregon University Center for Ethics advises physicians to refer all cases requesting assisted suicide for psychiatric evaluation, even though the physician is only required to refer patients that are suspected to be experiencing depression or mental a psychological disorder.
The reality is that only 13% of assisted suicide requests were referred for a psychiatric evaluation between 1998 - 2005 and no-one was referred for a psychiatric evaluation out of the 49 assisted suicide deaths in 2007.
It is also concerning that under the Oregon law the psychiatric assessment is only required to determine if the person has the capacity to decide. A person could be depressed and yet considered capable to consent to death.
The Oregon law doesn’t protect the person from being pressured. Kate Cheney’s case illustrates that even though Cheney was sent for a psychiatric assessment with the first psychiatrist suggesting that she was not capable of consenting, a second psychiatrist determined Cheney could consent even though it was noted that Cheney’s daughter appeared more interested in her suicide than Cheney herself.
Hendin and Foley suggest that this case questions what value Oregon’s prohibition on coercion really has.
Hendin and Foley also investigated the “lack of teeth” in the reporting system in Oregon. The OPHD have not addressed the issue of non-reporting, even though in the Netherlands and Belgium the issue of non-reporting is significant. The OPHD appear to be more concerned with patient-doctor confidentiality than with monitoring compliance or abuse.
The OPHD have admitted that they have no way of knowing how may assisted suicide cases are not reported.
The role of the assisted suicide advocacy group Compassion and Choices must be questioned. Compassion and Choices have been directly involved in 73% of all assisted suicide deaths in Oregon.
In 2006 Compassion and Choices lobbied the OPHD by threatening legal action if OPHD didn’t change the term assisted suicide to a term which was more palatable. The term assisted suicide has now been replaced by Death with Dignity.
How can the OPHD assure people that the law is being followed when the assisted suicide lobby group is also the referral agency for the majority of the assisted suicide deaths in Oregon.
Hendin and Foley conclude that “As the Oregon assisted suicide law is currently implemented, “Death with Dignity Act” is something of a misnomer.”
To receive a copy of the article - Physician-Assisted Suicide in Oregon: A Medical Perspective by Herbert Hendin and Kathleen Foley, simply contact Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at - 1-877-439-3348and request the article and we will send it to you.
http://www.spiorg.org/publications/HendinFoley_MichiganLawReview.pdf
Monday, May 12, 2008
'I made it look like they died in their sleep'
Jon Ronson is a film producer who supported assisted suicide and decided to make a film about assisted suicide campaigner George Exoo.
Ronson contacted Exoo to make a film about him, after it became known that Exoo had assisted the suicide of Rosemary Toole in January 2002 in Ireland. The Toole suicide created significant support for assisted suicide in Ireland.
The guardian published a story today about the experience Ronson had with interviewing and getting to know Exoo and his suicide "ministry" while producing the film about him.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/may/12/mentalhealth.health?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
This may be the most interesting story about the "inside" of the underground death culture that I have read. Exoo claims to have been directly involved in 102 suicide deaths. What is astounding is that most of his "clients" were not terminally ill but just depressed and in need of psychiatric help.
The prime example of an Exoo client is Pam Acre, a 59 year-old woman living on the outskirts of Baltimore.
Acre describes her disease as difficult because all the tests come back negative.
Exoo is not concerned about the mental condition of Acre, he is only interested in describing each method of suicide and determining which method Acre prefers.
Ronson was also interesting in finding out how Exoo met his clients.
Ronson interviewed Derek Humphry, the founder of the Hemlock society that has now morphed into the Compassion and Choices group in the U.S.
"Humphry said that the mainstream right-to-die groups will tell them (Exoo clients), "'We can't help you. It's not within our parameters because you aren't terminally ill.' But they pursue you. They call and call. And eventually someone will say, 'George Exoo will probably help you.' And that gets them off the phone and on to George."
What that means is that George Exoo is busy aiding, abeting and counseling suicide for people who are not terminally ill, and who simply need help for their depression and the mainstream "right to die" lobby is complicit by sending him their troubled callers.
The experience that Ronson has with George Exoo proves that when people learn about the right to die - suicide cult - they will change their mind about assisted suicide, like Ronson did.
The other inference that can be drawn from Ronson is that the only reason the mainstream right to die lobby won't "assist" people who are not terminal and only depressed because their goal is to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide and being associated with killing mentally ill and depressed people won't advance their goals.
Ronson contacted Exoo to make a film about him, after it became known that Exoo had assisted the suicide of Rosemary Toole in January 2002 in Ireland. The Toole suicide created significant support for assisted suicide in Ireland.
The guardian published a story today about the experience Ronson had with interviewing and getting to know Exoo and his suicide "ministry" while producing the film about him.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/may/12/mentalhealth.health?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
This may be the most interesting story about the "inside" of the underground death culture that I have read. Exoo claims to have been directly involved in 102 suicide deaths. What is astounding is that most of his "clients" were not terminally ill but just depressed and in need of psychiatric help.
The prime example of an Exoo client is Pam Acre, a 59 year-old woman living on the outskirts of Baltimore.
Acre describes her disease as difficult because all the tests come back negative.
Exoo is not concerned about the mental condition of Acre, he is only interested in describing each method of suicide and determining which method Acre prefers.
Ronson was also interesting in finding out how Exoo met his clients.
Ronson interviewed Derek Humphry, the founder of the Hemlock society that has now morphed into the Compassion and Choices group in the U.S.
"Humphry said that the mainstream right-to-die groups will tell them (Exoo clients), "'We can't help you. It's not within our parameters because you aren't terminally ill.' But they pursue you. They call and call. And eventually someone will say, 'George Exoo will probably help you.' And that gets them off the phone and on to George."
What that means is that George Exoo is busy aiding, abeting and counseling suicide for people who are not terminally ill, and who simply need help for their depression and the mainstream "right to die" lobby is complicit by sending him their troubled callers.
The experience that Ronson has with George Exoo proves that when people learn about the right to die - suicide cult - they will change their mind about assisted suicide, like Ronson did.
The other inference that can be drawn from Ronson is that the only reason the mainstream right to die lobby won't "assist" people who are not terminal and only depressed because their goal is to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide and being associated with killing mentally ill and depressed people won't advance their goals.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Washington State: Becoming Two-Faced About Suicide
Wesley Smith has written a fabulous article about the connection between suicide and assisted suicide. The reference point for this article is Washington State which is currently having a debate around the legalization of assisted suicide by means of a plebiscite.
This article is a must read for anyone who is concerned about the most vulnerable people in our society
www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/05/washington-state-becoming-two-faced.html
This article is a must read for anyone who is concerned about the most vulnerable people in our society
www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/05/washington-state-becoming-two-faced.html
A doctor's responsibility extends to society
Dr. Yoel Abells is a regular columnist in the national post.
Abells column from Wednesday, May 7 is a commentary of his re-reading of the book by Dr. Robert Lifton entitled Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide.
This book was possibly the best attempt at explaining why doctors, who are traditionally committed to healing and not killing, could willingly become involved in the holocaust and euthanasia killings of the Nazi era.
Dr. Abells explains that he re-read's Dr. Robert Liftons' book in relation to the recent Holocaust Remembrance Day.
This article is worth reading. Abells asserts that doctors need to be the moral conscience in our society. I agree.
The only question is - Do doctors in a post-modern society have a collective moral conscience?
http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=497286
Abells column from Wednesday, May 7 is a commentary of his re-reading of the book by Dr. Robert Lifton entitled Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide.
This book was possibly the best attempt at explaining why doctors, who are traditionally committed to healing and not killing, could willingly become involved in the holocaust and euthanasia killings of the Nazi era.
Dr. Abells explains that he re-read's Dr. Robert Liftons' book in relation to the recent Holocaust Remembrance Day.
This article is worth reading. Abells asserts that doctors need to be the moral conscience in our society. I agree.
The only question is - Do doctors in a post-modern society have a collective moral conscience?
http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=497286
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Oregon still stands alone: Ten years of physician-assisted suicide
The American Medical News has published an extensive article on Oregon’s Assisted Suicide law after 10 years.
The article covered several important concerns such as the fact that people who live with depression do not seem to be protected by the law anymore. The article stated:
“Numerous studies of patients in Oregon and elsewhere found that depressed patients are significantly more likely to seek physician-assisted suicide. Any person seeking a deadly prescription should receive a mental health consultation, according to a health care professionals guidebook prepared by a task force convened by Oregon Health & Science University’s Center for Ethics in Health Care.
Only 10% of patients who have died under the law were referred for psychiatric evaluation, which is legally required if the prescribing or consulting physician believes a patient may have depression or another mental illness. In 2007, no patients were referred for consultations.”
The article also pointed out that their have been flaws in the application of the act. The article stated:
“But use of the Death With Dignity Act has not been flawless. Though 94% of patients died without complications, 19 patients regurgitated the medication before dying. David Pruitt, a lung cancer patient, awakened 65 hours after taking the dose prescribed to kill him.
“What the hell happened?” he reportedly said after waking up. “Why am I not dead?”
Pruitt died of cancer two weeks later.”
The article also bought into some of the false ideas that are promoted by the euthanasia lobby group, Compassion and Choices. The article appears to state that legalizing assisted suicide has improved hospice/palliative care and other end of life care concerns. The article stated:
“Since Medicare began reimbursing hospice services in 1982, the number of patients choosing this end-of-life care option has grown steadily. One in three Americans now dies under the care of a hospice program, and the number of programs has grown almost 50% since 1997. In Oregon, overall hospice use has jumped 84% since the use of the Death With Dignity Act in 1998. Nearly six in 10 dying Medicare-age patients there received hospice care in 2005, the most recent year for which data are available. Oregon placed ninth among states on hospice utilization in 2005.”
It is a false comment to connect the increased utilization of hospice/palliative care with the introduction of assisted suicide in Oregon simply because in the same time-period hospice/palliative care has grown exponentially throughout the USA, not only Oregon.
The most important facts that the American Medical News and other articles fail to report is that 73% of all deaths by assisted suicide in Oregon are facilitated by the Compassion and Choices lobby group, who have a stable of physicians who are willing to prescribe death to their patients.
We will never know what is actually happening in Oregon when the reporting is done by the physicians who prescribe death and Compassion and Choices remains the primary provider of death in Oregon. The law remains covered in secrecy and these extensive reports are essentially numbers without real personal stories or truth connected.
Amednews.com - http://www.ama-assn.org:80/amednews/2008/05/12/prsa0512.htm
The article covered several important concerns such as the fact that people who live with depression do not seem to be protected by the law anymore. The article stated:
“Numerous studies of patients in Oregon and elsewhere found that depressed patients are significantly more likely to seek physician-assisted suicide. Any person seeking a deadly prescription should receive a mental health consultation, according to a health care professionals guidebook prepared by a task force convened by Oregon Health & Science University’s Center for Ethics in Health Care.
Only 10% of patients who have died under the law were referred for psychiatric evaluation, which is legally required if the prescribing or consulting physician believes a patient may have depression or another mental illness. In 2007, no patients were referred for consultations.”
The article also pointed out that their have been flaws in the application of the act. The article stated:
“But use of the Death With Dignity Act has not been flawless. Though 94% of patients died without complications, 19 patients regurgitated the medication before dying. David Pruitt, a lung cancer patient, awakened 65 hours after taking the dose prescribed to kill him.
“What the hell happened?” he reportedly said after waking up. “Why am I not dead?”
Pruitt died of cancer two weeks later.”
The article also bought into some of the false ideas that are promoted by the euthanasia lobby group, Compassion and Choices. The article appears to state that legalizing assisted suicide has improved hospice/palliative care and other end of life care concerns. The article stated:
“Since Medicare began reimbursing hospice services in 1982, the number of patients choosing this end-of-life care option has grown steadily. One in three Americans now dies under the care of a hospice program, and the number of programs has grown almost 50% since 1997. In Oregon, overall hospice use has jumped 84% since the use of the Death With Dignity Act in 1998. Nearly six in 10 dying Medicare-age patients there received hospice care in 2005, the most recent year for which data are available. Oregon placed ninth among states on hospice utilization in 2005.”
It is a false comment to connect the increased utilization of hospice/palliative care with the introduction of assisted suicide in Oregon simply because in the same time-period hospice/palliative care has grown exponentially throughout the USA, not only Oregon.
The most important facts that the American Medical News and other articles fail to report is that 73% of all deaths by assisted suicide in Oregon are facilitated by the Compassion and Choices lobby group, who have a stable of physicians who are willing to prescribe death to their patients.
We will never know what is actually happening in Oregon when the reporting is done by the physicians who prescribe death and Compassion and Choices remains the primary provider of death in Oregon. The law remains covered in secrecy and these extensive reports are essentially numbers without real personal stories or truth connected.
Amednews.com - http://www.ama-assn.org:80/amednews/2008/05/12/prsa0512.htm
Monday, May 5, 2008
Nitschke 'hell-bent on assisted suicide'
Two Australian women have pleaded not guilty in a New South Wales Supreme Court to murdering Graeme Wylie by giving him a lethal dose of Nembutal on March 22, 2006.
Shirley Justins (59) the partner of Wylie for 18 years and their friend Caren Jennings (74) were supporters of the group Exit International, the euthanasia lobby group that is operated by Dr. Philip Nitschke.
Justins and Jennings have also pleaded not guilty to importing the barbiturate Nembutal into Australia from Mexico. Both women pleaded guilty to the lesser alternative charge of aiding and abetting suicide.
In November 2005, Wylie was turned down by the Swiss Suicide group Dignitas because they questioned his ability to consent.
Dignitas had asked Nitschke to visit Wylie and report back as to his mental condition. Nitschke visited Wylie but decided not to further assess Wylie condition because he wanted to support Wylie’s desire for assisted suicide.
“The court was told Dr Nitschke was "hell bent" on getting Mr Wylie on the program.”
“If Graeme Wylie was affected by dementia to the extent that he no longer had the capacity to make an independent, informed decision himself about whether or not to commit suicide then from the law's point of view it is as though he did not know that the poison was there,” Mr Tedeschi, the lawyer for the crown, told the jury.
“(Justins' and Jenning's) actions in taking nembutal to him amount to murder.” stated Tedeschi.
This case emphasizes two important issues.
The euthanasia lobby is not really concerned about consent. Even someone who is suffering from Alzheimer or dementia can be killed, even when consent is not possible.
The second point is that the euthanasia lobby is not concerned with the health of their victims. They are only concerned with a change in the law, and once the law is changed, they are really concerned with facilitating death.
The same is true in the State of Oregon where last years report showed that none of the 49 assisted suicide deaths in 2007 were first referred to a psychiatrist or a psychologist, which is required by the law when the doctor suspects possible depression or mental issues.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/05/2235928.htm
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23649575-5005961,00.html
Shirley Justins (59) the partner of Wylie for 18 years and their friend Caren Jennings (74) were supporters of the group Exit International, the euthanasia lobby group that is operated by Dr. Philip Nitschke.
Justins and Jennings have also pleaded not guilty to importing the barbiturate Nembutal into Australia from Mexico. Both women pleaded guilty to the lesser alternative charge of aiding and abetting suicide.
In November 2005, Wylie was turned down by the Swiss Suicide group Dignitas because they questioned his ability to consent.
Dignitas had asked Nitschke to visit Wylie and report back as to his mental condition. Nitschke visited Wylie but decided not to further assess Wylie condition because he wanted to support Wylie’s desire for assisted suicide.
“The court was told Dr Nitschke was "hell bent" on getting Mr Wylie on the program.”
“If Graeme Wylie was affected by dementia to the extent that he no longer had the capacity to make an independent, informed decision himself about whether or not to commit suicide then from the law's point of view it is as though he did not know that the poison was there,” Mr Tedeschi, the lawyer for the crown, told the jury.
“(Justins' and Jenning's) actions in taking nembutal to him amount to murder.” stated Tedeschi.
This case emphasizes two important issues.
The euthanasia lobby is not really concerned about consent. Even someone who is suffering from Alzheimer or dementia can be killed, even when consent is not possible.
The second point is that the euthanasia lobby is not concerned with the health of their victims. They are only concerned with a change in the law, and once the law is changed, they are really concerned with facilitating death.
The same is true in the State of Oregon where last years report showed that none of the 49 assisted suicide deaths in 2007 were first referred to a psychiatrist or a psychologist, which is required by the law when the doctor suspects possible depression or mental issues.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/05/2235928.htm
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23649575-5005961,00.html
Friday, May 2, 2008
Rudd explains why he opposes euthanasia
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia has stated that he opposes voluntary euthanasia but would allow a free-vote in parliament on the issue.
The Sydney Morning Herald quoted Prime Minister Rudd as stating "It's just my own personal view ... that if you changed the laws in this area, I do become concerned about the way in which these things can drift over time," he said.
"Particularly in the attitude taken by older people themselves, or people with terminal illnesses, who then conclude that they are being an increasing burden to their families and then conclude that it's in other people's interests, not their own best interests, to seek euthanasia."
On the question of the free vote in parliament Prime Minister Rudd stated "If it becomes a matter for vote in the federal parliament, people exercise their conscience differently."
Green party Senator Bob Brown has introduced legislation in Australia to restore the law that legalized euthanasia in the northern territory of Australia in 1995.
For more information, go to:
http://news.smh.com.au/rudd-explains-why-he-opposes-euthanasia/20080502-2a5z.html#
The Sydney Morning Herald - May 2, 2008
The Sydney Morning Herald quoted Prime Minister Rudd as stating "It's just my own personal view ... that if you changed the laws in this area, I do become concerned about the way in which these things can drift over time," he said.
"Particularly in the attitude taken by older people themselves, or people with terminal illnesses, who then conclude that they are being an increasing burden to their families and then conclude that it's in other people's interests, not their own best interests, to seek euthanasia."
On the question of the free vote in parliament Prime Minister Rudd stated "If it becomes a matter for vote in the federal parliament, people exercise their conscience differently."
Green party Senator Bob Brown has introduced legislation in Australia to restore the law that legalized euthanasia in the northern territory of Australia in 1995.
For more information, go to:
http://news.smh.com.au/rudd-explains-why-he-opposes-euthanasia/20080502-2a5z.html#
The Sydney Morning Herald - May 2, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Internet providers urged to remove 'suicide gas' instructions
The euthanasia lobby likes to talk about choice and the right of competent people to make decisions about their own autonomy.
The reality is that the euthanasia lobby is really about creating a “right to die” meaning that people would have the right to have someone else directly involved in their death at the time of their choosing.
The euthanasia lobby really doesn’t care that their utopian vision directly threatens the lives of vulnerable people.
The posting of specific suicide instructions on the internet has prompted a strong response from Japanese police.
The National Police Agency in Japan has asked ISPs, telecom firms and cable broadcasters for help after 48 people have died using homemade hydrogen sulphide to commit suicide in the past month alone. They are asking that instructions on how to produce hydrogen sulphide gas be removed from suicide websites.
Remember, choice is a euphemism that is used by the euthanasia lobby to push a radical agenda for an international “right” to die.
Victims of suicide do not choose death, but rather die out of an extreme feeling of hopelessness that is often related to depression, mental illness or breakdown.
For more information go to http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/200805/s2232104.htm?tab=asia
The reality is that the euthanasia lobby is really about creating a “right to die” meaning that people would have the right to have someone else directly involved in their death at the time of their choosing.
The euthanasia lobby really doesn’t care that their utopian vision directly threatens the lives of vulnerable people.
The posting of specific suicide instructions on the internet has prompted a strong response from Japanese police.
The National Police Agency in Japan has asked ISPs, telecom firms and cable broadcasters for help after 48 people have died using homemade hydrogen sulphide to commit suicide in the past month alone. They are asking that instructions on how to produce hydrogen sulphide gas be removed from suicide websites.
Remember, choice is a euphemism that is used by the euthanasia lobby to push a radical agenda for an international “right” to die.
Victims of suicide do not choose death, but rather die out of an extreme feeling of hopelessness that is often related to depression, mental illness or breakdown.
For more information go to http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/200805/s2232104.htm?tab=asia
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Netherland Euthanasia Statistics Not Even Telling half the story.
Please go to Wesley Smith's Blog for his excellent commentary on the newest euthanasia statistics in the Netherlands.
The link is http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/04/netherlands-euthanasia-statistics-not.html
The link is http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/04/netherlands-euthanasia-statistics-not.html
Monday, April 28, 2008
Discussion at WSU challenges need for legalizing physician-assisted suicide
In Washington State, a campaign is underway to legalize assisted suicide -- Initiative-1000 is led by Booth Gardner, the former Governor of Washington State who has Parkinson’s disease.
Chris Wesen - a 19-year-old recently attended a presentation titled “Euthanasia: A Disability Perspective,” sponsored by the WSU Disability Awareness Association.
Wesen came to the presentation supporting assisted suicide but left the presentation opposed.
People in Washington State need to listen to those who speak for the disability rights movement -- those who would be directly affected by legalized assisted suicide.
For more information go to article "Discussion at WSU challenges need for legalizing physician-assisted suicide" (http://www.dnews.com/breaking-news/443/)
Chris Wesen - a 19-year-old recently attended a presentation titled “Euthanasia: A Disability Perspective,” sponsored by the WSU Disability Awareness Association.
Wesen came to the presentation supporting assisted suicide but left the presentation opposed.
People in Washington State need to listen to those who speak for the disability rights movement -- those who would be directly affected by legalized assisted suicide.
For more information go to article "Discussion at WSU challenges need for legalizing physician-assisted suicide" (http://www.dnews.com/breaking-news/443/)
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Saltspring, B.C., deaths ruled murder-suicide
Another sad story about a violent murder-suicide was reported by Canwest News Service.
On November 24, 2007 the bodies of David (63) & Nancy (75) Denovan were found in their home on Saltspring Island, B.C.
The article states that "At the time, many in the close-knit island community speculated she had somehow chosen to end her life with the help of her husband."
The article also states that "However, detectives said autopsies concluded there were no long-term health problems with either person."
Nancy died from blunt-force trauma to her head, caused by a weapon, and her neck was cut.
David purchased a rope a few days before the act and used it to hang himself. The act appears to have been planned.
In March 2005, a study done by Julie Malphurs & Donna Cohen on 20 cases of homicide/suicide in Florida showed that so called compassionate spousal homicide/suicide deaths are in fact spousal murder-suicide. In every instance Cohen found that the husband had killed his wife and in nearly all cases the death was a violent death without any connection to assisted suicide.
(A Statewide Case–Control Study of Spousal Homicide–Suicide in Older Persons, Julie Malphurs, Donna Cohen - http://ajgponline.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/211)
People often jump to conclusions when they hear about a murder-suicide and they associate these deaths with assisted suicide. Rarely are these cases ever connected to supposed acts of “compassion”.
This case shows again that most of these crimes are based on planned, violent actions of one spouse, usually the husband, against the other spouse.
These cases rarely, if ever, have anything to do with assisted suicide.
"Saltspring, B.C., deaths ruled murder-suicide"
Canwest News Service, Friday, April 25, 2008
On November 24, 2007 the bodies of David (63) & Nancy (75) Denovan were found in their home on Saltspring Island, B.C.
The article states that "At the time, many in the close-knit island community speculated she had somehow chosen to end her life with the help of her husband."
The article also states that "However, detectives said autopsies concluded there were no long-term health problems with either person."
Nancy died from blunt-force trauma to her head, caused by a weapon, and her neck was cut.
David purchased a rope a few days before the act and used it to hang himself. The act appears to have been planned.
In March 2005, a study done by Julie Malphurs & Donna Cohen on 20 cases of homicide/suicide in Florida showed that so called compassionate spousal homicide/suicide deaths are in fact spousal murder-suicide. In every instance Cohen found that the husband had killed his wife and in nearly all cases the death was a violent death without any connection to assisted suicide.
(A Statewide Case–Control Study of Spousal Homicide–Suicide in Older Persons, Julie Malphurs, Donna Cohen - http://ajgponline.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/211)
People often jump to conclusions when they hear about a murder-suicide and they associate these deaths with assisted suicide. Rarely are these cases ever connected to supposed acts of “compassion”.
This case shows again that most of these crimes are based on planned, violent actions of one spouse, usually the husband, against the other spouse.
These cases rarely, if ever, have anything to do with assisted suicide.
"Saltspring, B.C., deaths ruled murder-suicide"
Canwest News Service, Friday, April 25, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Dying alone - greatest fear
Alex Schadenberg
For many years I have been saying that the problem that is leading society towards demanding euthanasia is the fear of dying alone and feeling abandoned in one's time of need.
The feeling of loneliness and abandonment often leads to further feelings of hopelessness and depression.
According to a recent study by the British euthanasia lobby group Dying in Dignity, 32% of British people who were surveyed (2,246 adults) stated that their greatest fear about dying was being alone.
Why is it that the fear of dying alone is precipitating an interest in euthanasia or assisted suicide?
I am convinced that a caring culture is the antidote to a culture of death. People need to care for the other, to journey with, or "be with" the other in their time of need.
When people feel alone and lonely they often become depressed and vulnerable. These people need to be supported and protected, not offered death.
The Dying in Dignity study should concern us that if euthanasia were legal that people might be killed because they felt abandoned and alone with no reason to live.
We need to become a caring society that care for people, and not kill them.
See article Dying alone 'greatest fear' - poll
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
The feeling of loneliness and abandonment often leads to further feelings of hopelessness and depression.
According to a recent study by the British euthanasia lobby group Dying in Dignity, 32% of British people who were surveyed (2,246 adults) stated that their greatest fear about dying was being alone.
Why is it that the fear of dying alone is precipitating an interest in euthanasia or assisted suicide?
I am convinced that a caring culture is the antidote to a culture of death. People need to care for the other, to journey with, or "be with" the other in their time of need.
When people feel alone and lonely they often become depressed and vulnerable. These people need to be supported and protected, not offered death.
The Dying in Dignity study should concern us that if euthanasia were legal that people might be killed because they felt abandoned and alone with no reason to live.
We need to become a caring society that care for people, and not kill them.
See article Dying alone 'greatest fear' - poll
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The development of palliative care and legalization of euthanasia in Belgium
The British Medical Journal has recently released an analysis by Jan Bernheim and colleagues concerning the: Development of palliative care and legalization of euthanasia in Belgium. http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/april/ac864.pdf.
Just because the article is published in the British Medical Journal does not mean that it represents a research study or that it represents a scientifically proven point of view.
The article on the development of palliative care and the legalization of euthanasia in Belgium is the story of how a group of people worked to build the palliative care movement and simultaneously worked to legalize euthanasia in Belgium.
Bernheim states that two of the founders of palliative care in Belgium, Karel Roelants and himself, were also euthanasia activists.
The article attempts to prove that euthanasia and palliative care do not represent opposite medical models and both models can work effectively together.
The real purpose for the article appears to be the story of how certain members of the euthanasia movement in Belgium were able to co-opt the palliative care movement by taking it outside of its natural roots and making it a model for killing rather than care. It may also be a story associated with the pride of these individuals who effectively made palliative care into something it is not.
When palliative care is based on a model of caring for dying persons, affirming their life and their gifted-ness until their natural death, then it leads to a society that cares for its weakest members.
When palliative care is connected to euthanasia or assisted suicide, it stops being a model of care and becomes a medical model that is concerned with ending the lives of individuals using medical means that may provide comfort but are essentially oriented to dying rather than living until a natural death.
This article only proves that certain people effectively transformed the concept/practice of care for the dying into a medical model for effectively killing the dying.
http://www.huliq.com:80/57273/palliative-care-legal-euthanasia-can-be-mutually-beneficial
Just because the article is published in the British Medical Journal does not mean that it represents a research study or that it represents a scientifically proven point of view.
The article on the development of palliative care and the legalization of euthanasia in Belgium is the story of how a group of people worked to build the palliative care movement and simultaneously worked to legalize euthanasia in Belgium.
Bernheim states that two of the founders of palliative care in Belgium, Karel Roelants and himself, were also euthanasia activists.
The article attempts to prove that euthanasia and palliative care do not represent opposite medical models and both models can work effectively together.
The real purpose for the article appears to be the story of how certain members of the euthanasia movement in Belgium were able to co-opt the palliative care movement by taking it outside of its natural roots and making it a model for killing rather than care. It may also be a story associated with the pride of these individuals who effectively made palliative care into something it is not.
When palliative care is based on a model of caring for dying persons, affirming their life and their gifted-ness until their natural death, then it leads to a society that cares for its weakest members.
When palliative care is connected to euthanasia or assisted suicide, it stops being a model of care and becomes a medical model that is concerned with ending the lives of individuals using medical means that may provide comfort but are essentially oriented to dying rather than living until a natural death.
This article only proves that certain people effectively transformed the concept/practice of care for the dying into a medical model for effectively killing the dying.
http://www.huliq.com:80/57273/palliative-care-legal-euthanasia-can-be-mutually-beneficial
Monday, April 21, 2008
Euthanasia trends in Europe
Euthanasia and assisted suicide were legalized in the Netherlands and Belgium in 2002. The Netherlands had effectively legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide by the decree of the courts in 1984 with the 2002 legalization simply codifying accepted practice into law.
Recently the country of Luxembourg moved closer to legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide with legislation passing second reading and going into hearings. It is widely expected that Luxembourg will be the third European nation to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.
In 2003 a group of “ethicists” at the Groningen University Hospital began looking at the question of infant euthanasia in the Netherlands. The 2002 law allowed euthanasia of consenting adults over the age of 12. The problem that the committee at Groningen University were attempting to solve is: what should be done with the newborns that are born with anomalies?
The Groningen Protocol was promulgated in 2005 and established a set of guidelines to be followed for the purpose of euthanizing infants in the Netherlands. The Groningen Protocol was based on the reports from Dutch physicians concerning the deaths of 22 infants who were born with spina bifida. Dutch physicians were not being prosecuted when they ended the life of newborns with spina bifida based on the Prins case in 1997. Prins was a physician who escaped prosecution after he killed an infant with spina bifida.The Groningen Protocol allows euthanasia of infants when the parents give consent and when the child is considered to lack an “acceptable” quality of life. These decisions are made based on quality of life judgements that are connected to the new eugenics ideology that is promoted by Peter Singer of Princeton University and becoming more prevalent in our current culture.
At the World Federation of Right to Die Societies Conference in Toronto - September 2006 - Dr. Rob Jonquiére, the President of NVVE the leading euthanasia lobby group in the Netherlands explained that their goal was the legalization of the “last-will pill”. This is a prescription that would be given to healthy individuals (usually elderly or people with disabilities) who were tired of living.
In March, legislators in Belgium announced their intention to change the euthanasia law in their country to include infants, teenagers, and people with dementia or Alzheimer's disease.
The euthanasia law in Belgium was based on the Netherlands statute. It is recognized that the (so-called) safeguards in the Netherlands and Belgium laws were based on court precedents and political compromise. Now that the law has been in place for several years, there is an interest in changing the law towards gaining a universal “right” to die.
In Switzerland, the Dignitas suicide clinic has now changed its suicide technique from the use of a prescription to that of the plastic bag with helium (Exit bag). The Dignitas clinic is known for its encouragement of suicide tourists who go to Switzerland to die. It is estimated that 2 out of 3 people who die at their suicide clinic are suicide tourists.
In France the case of Chantal Sébire, a woman who had tumors in her head that had caused her to become significantly deformed, and who had lost her sense of smell, her hearing and her sight. Sébire requested that she be allowed to have assistance with suicide. Her case was so emotionally compelling that 87% of the French population supported her request for assisted suicide.
After the courts refused Sébire, she committed suicide. We now know that Sébire had refused effective medical treatment for her condition from the very beginning. Her physicians explained that she could have had treatment in 2002 that would most likely have returned her to full health. She also refused pain management help that would have effectively relieved her pain and symptoms.
In Germany, Roger Kusch, a former German government minister, announced that he was planning to loan-out suicide machines to people who wished to die. This is not a new concept. When Jack Kevorkian first began his campaign in Michigan he was using a simple contraption to allow the person to commit suicide.
In Europe the Euthanasia lobby is becoming bolder and more extreme. They have let go of their traditional anthems of voluntary euthanasia for the competent and suffering; now they use language that would lead to euthanasia as a human right.
Remember, the issue of euthanasia is not about terminal illness, compassion for the dying, or ending suffering. Euthanasia is about having someone end your life at the time of your choosing or for society to allow someone to end the lives of incompetent vulnerable people who are unable to realize that they are better off dead.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Bloc MP Francine Lalonde continues to fight to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Last month during an interview on the CBC radio show Cross Country Checkup Jocelyn Downie, the Canada research chair in Health, Law and Policy from Dalhousie University stated that she knew that new legislation was being drafted to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. Downie also stated that a new test case had been drafted to challenge the criminal code prohibitions of euthanasia via the courts.
On April 13, 2008, Canada Press published an interview with Francine Lalonde, the Bloc Quebecois MP who had introduced bill C-407 in 2005, a bill that would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. Lalonde stated that she intends to introduce new legislation to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide soon.
Lalonde, who has been battling cancer for the past 2 years is “pushing ahead with plans to force the House of Commons to relaunch the debate on assisted suicide.”
Bill C-407 would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide for people suffering chronic physical and mental pain. Chronic physical and mental pain can be effectively treated.
Bill C-407 did not require that a person at least attempt effective treatment for their chronic physical or mental pain. The bill stated that a person qualifies for euthanasia even if they have refused to try effective treatments.
Bill C-407 did not limit euthanasia to competent people. Bill C-407 legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide for people who “appear to be lucid”. What did it mean to appear to be lucid?
Bill C-407 did not limit euthanasia to physicians alone. Bill C-407 allowed anyone to carry-out euthanasia or assist a suicide of anyone, as long as they are “assisted by a medical practitioner”, and act in the manner indicated by the person who wishes to die.
Bill C-407 did not even provide the typical “safeguards” that we have seen in other jurisdictions where euthanasia and assisted suicide have been proposed.
Even if Lalonde tightens up the wording in her new proposal, we already know her intentions based on the wording of Bill C-407.
Lalonde stated to Canada Press that: “I am not worried about abuse, I am worried, however, about what is going on in Quebec. People are suffering and can’t find help and they are putting moral pressure on people they know to help them die. I find that a slippery slope.”
Whereas the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is equally concerned about people who are suffering and can’t find help, we recognize that this is more related to our failure to effectively provide good end of life care rather than our need to legalize the killing of the vulnerable.
Bill C-407 allowed a person a kill another person. Once society allows one person to kill another it becomes impossible to protect those who are made to feel like a burden upon society. Bill C-407 directly threatened the lives of people with disabilities and other vulnerable Canadians. People who need to be treated with equality and dignity and who often need to be protected by society.
http://canadianpress.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5jwYIMTwsWUrluG2yypw09VsWXw2g
Canadian Press - Ottawa - April 13, 2008
For more information or commentary on euthanasia and assisted suicide please contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: 1-877-439-3348 or Email: info@epcc.ca
On April 13, 2008, Canada Press published an interview with Francine Lalonde, the Bloc Quebecois MP who had introduced bill C-407 in 2005, a bill that would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. Lalonde stated that she intends to introduce new legislation to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide soon.
Lalonde, who has been battling cancer for the past 2 years is “pushing ahead with plans to force the House of Commons to relaunch the debate on assisted suicide.”
Bill C-407 would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide for people suffering chronic physical and mental pain. Chronic physical and mental pain can be effectively treated.
Bill C-407 did not require that a person at least attempt effective treatment for their chronic physical or mental pain. The bill stated that a person qualifies for euthanasia even if they have refused to try effective treatments.
Bill C-407 did not limit euthanasia to competent people. Bill C-407 legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide for people who “appear to be lucid”. What did it mean to appear to be lucid?
Bill C-407 did not limit euthanasia to physicians alone. Bill C-407 allowed anyone to carry-out euthanasia or assist a suicide of anyone, as long as they are “assisted by a medical practitioner”, and act in the manner indicated by the person who wishes to die.
Bill C-407 did not even provide the typical “safeguards” that we have seen in other jurisdictions where euthanasia and assisted suicide have been proposed.
Even if Lalonde tightens up the wording in her new proposal, we already know her intentions based on the wording of Bill C-407.
Lalonde stated to Canada Press that: “I am not worried about abuse, I am worried, however, about what is going on in Quebec. People are suffering and can’t find help and they are putting moral pressure on people they know to help them die. I find that a slippery slope.”
Whereas the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is equally concerned about people who are suffering and can’t find help, we recognize that this is more related to our failure to effectively provide good end of life care rather than our need to legalize the killing of the vulnerable.
Bill C-407 allowed a person a kill another person. Once society allows one person to kill another it becomes impossible to protect those who are made to feel like a burden upon society. Bill C-407 directly threatened the lives of people with disabilities and other vulnerable Canadians. People who need to be treated with equality and dignity and who often need to be protected by society.
http://canadianpress.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5jwYIMTwsWUrluG2yypw09VsWXw2g
Canadian Press - Ottawa - April 13, 2008
For more information or commentary on euthanasia and assisted suicide please contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: 1-877-439-3348 or Email: info@epcc.ca
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Mum steps up war on suicide sites
A British woman, Liz Stephenson is hoping the new research on suicide websites will add weight to her campaign for the Government to shut down websites that promote suicide.
Stephenson’s daughter Carina committed suicide two years ago after spending significant time reading and surfing how-to-suicide web-sites.
Stephenson blamed the sites “wholly” for what happened to Carina and said she had since felt like “a lone voice” in her campaign to stop them providing suicide advice.
There is no regulation of suicide sites in the UK because they are not illegal, the researchers added.
In the UK “A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “We are actively looking at what we can do to control so-called suicide websites. There are inherent difficulties, because many of them are based overseas, but we are considering whether the law could be strengthened or clarified and will announce conclusions shortly.”
Similar to Canada, the UK prohibits aiding, abeting and counseling suicide. These laws need to be updated to explicitly outlaw suicide counseling by internet or other communications medium in a similar manner as the law in Australia. In the United States, laws prohibiting suicide counseling are regulated by the State.
Dr. Philip Nitscke, Australia’s Dr. Death, who has operated a suicide counseling service, made it clear in an interview in the national review (http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200411150826.asp) that once he develops a suicide pill - peaceful pill - that it would be available to troubled teens.
Society needs to recognize that vulnerable people need to be protected from predators, including suicide predators who claim to be solely concerned about “choice” but who are in fact promoting information that directly threatens the lives of vulnerable people.
http://www.thestar.co.uk:80/doncaster/Mum-steps-up-war-on.3974488.jp
Published Date: 12 April 2008 Source: Doncaster Star, Sheffield
Stephenson’s daughter Carina committed suicide two years ago after spending significant time reading and surfing how-to-suicide web-sites.
Stephenson blamed the sites “wholly” for what happened to Carina and said she had since felt like “a lone voice” in her campaign to stop them providing suicide advice.
There is no regulation of suicide sites in the UK because they are not illegal, the researchers added.
In the UK “A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “We are actively looking at what we can do to control so-called suicide websites. There are inherent difficulties, because many of them are based overseas, but we are considering whether the law could be strengthened or clarified and will announce conclusions shortly.”
Similar to Canada, the UK prohibits aiding, abeting and counseling suicide. These laws need to be updated to explicitly outlaw suicide counseling by internet or other communications medium in a similar manner as the law in Australia. In the United States, laws prohibiting suicide counseling are regulated by the State.
Dr. Philip Nitscke, Australia’s Dr. Death, who has operated a suicide counseling service, made it clear in an interview in the national review (http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200411150826.asp) that once he develops a suicide pill - peaceful pill - that it would be available to troubled teens.
Society needs to recognize that vulnerable people need to be protected from predators, including suicide predators who claim to be solely concerned about “choice” but who are in fact promoting information that directly threatens the lives of vulnerable people.
http://www.thestar.co.uk:80/doncaster/Mum-steps-up-war-on.3974488.jp
Published Date: 12 April 2008 Source: Doncaster Star, Sheffield
Renowned oncologist changes position on euthanasia after contracting cancer
The Spanish magazine Huellas has published an interview with Sylvie Menard who is one of the most renowned oncologists in Europe. Menard changed her position from supporting euthanasia to now opposing euthanasia in response to her battle with bone cancer.
Menard stated to Huellas that: “those who promote euthanasia do so for two reasons: they don’t want to suffer and they don’t want to lose self-sufficiency, thus becoming a burden for others.”
She agreed that people who are ill “do not want to experience pain” and that “they have a right to alleviate it”. She also emphasized that “pain therapy has advanced considerably in recent years.”
Menard appears to indicate that her new opposition to euthanasia is partially due to a change in her perspective on the dignity of life.
She stated “Even if you do not have complete use of your faculties and you cannot get up because you are confined to bed, but you still have the affection of your family members, in my opinion, even in those conditions, it’s worth it to keep living,”
Dignity is related to how we interact and care for others. People who feel abandoned in their time of need will often feel that they are a burden on others or that their life has become hopeless.
The antidote to the culture of death is a culture that cares for and supports the most vulnerable in their time of need.
The culture that we live in needs a radical shift towards a commitment by society and individuals to care for people and not kill people.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com:80/new.php?n=12314
http://www.huellas-cl.com
Madrid, Apr 11, 2008 / 03:21 pm (CNA).
Menard stated to Huellas that: “those who promote euthanasia do so for two reasons: they don’t want to suffer and they don’t want to lose self-sufficiency, thus becoming a burden for others.”
She agreed that people who are ill “do not want to experience pain” and that “they have a right to alleviate it”. She also emphasized that “pain therapy has advanced considerably in recent years.”
Menard appears to indicate that her new opposition to euthanasia is partially due to a change in her perspective on the dignity of life.
She stated “Even if you do not have complete use of your faculties and you cannot get up because you are confined to bed, but you still have the affection of your family members, in my opinion, even in those conditions, it’s worth it to keep living,”
Dignity is related to how we interact and care for others. People who feel abandoned in their time of need will often feel that they are a burden on others or that their life has become hopeless.
The antidote to the culture of death is a culture that cares for and supports the most vulnerable in their time of need.
The culture that we live in needs a radical shift towards a commitment by society and individuals to care for people and not kill people.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com:80/new.php?n=12314
http://www.huellas-cl.com
Madrid, Apr 11, 2008 / 03:21 pm (CNA).
Friday, April 11, 2008
Suicide Promotion more common than Prevention in web searches.
A recent article published in British Medical Journal and reported in Insidermedicine proved that when web searches are done on the major search engines for suicide information the main sites that come up are suicide promotion sites.
The author of the report stated:
“Overall, the searches uncovered 240 unique sites about suicide, just under half of which provided information about how to commit suicide. Nearly one-fifth of the hits as well as the top three most frequently occurring sites were for pages that promoted suicide. Only 13% of the sites were dedicated to suicide prevention and support, and only 12% actively discouraged suicide. Most of the sites -- even some of those dedicated to suicide prevention -- provided information on methods of suicide.”According to the article statistics show that:
• Worldwide, about one million people die from suicide every year. It is a leading cause of death in teens and young adults.Euthanasia activists, such as Philip Nitschke - Australia’s Dr. Death, who promoted suicide information on the internet for years that resulted in legislation in Australia a few years ago to ban aiding, abeting and counseling suicide via the internet and other communications medium.
• Most people who commit suicide are suffering from a mental illness, such as depression, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia.
People who contact these suicide information services are mainly vulnerable people who society should be trying to help and protect. These people are victims of radical activists rather than people who are "freely choosing" to die.
Most people who seek assisted suicide meet a similar profile as people who attempt suicide. People who are seeking assistance in suicide need good mental health care and support and not suicide assistance.
http://www.insidermedicine.ca:80/archives/Suicide_Promotion_More_Common_Than_Prevention_in_Web_Searches_2380.aspx
Suicide Promotion More Common Than Prevention in Web Searches
(April 10, 2008 - Insidermedicine)
Monday, April 7, 2008
It appears that Hillary Clinton supports assisted suicide
By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
In a comment (below) to the Register-Guard editorial board Hillary Clinton makes a statement that would suggest that she supports assisted suicide.
Even-though she is guarded in her comments she does say that: "I think it's an appropriate right to have."
It shouldn't surprise people that she supports assisted-suicide but it must be considered a factor when people are deciding who to vote for in November.
Excerpt from Hillary Clinton's conversation with the Register-Guard Editorial Board (Eugene, Oregon- 04/05/08) -
Go to the Not Dead Yet article.
Even-though she is guarded in her comments she does say that: "I think it's an appropriate right to have."
It shouldn't surprise people that she supports assisted-suicide but it must be considered a factor when people are deciding who to vote for in November.
Excerpt from Hillary Clinton's conversation with the Register-Guard Editorial Board (Eugene, Oregon- 04/05/08) -
Go to the Not Dead Yet article.
Sebire's refusal of effective medical treatment
When I first heard about the case of Chantal Sébire, I was mystified that her condition was so extreme. Since I was not informed of her personal condition I assumed that her tumors were inoperable.
Now I learn that Sébire had constantly refused treatment for her condition that would have likely returned her to a healthy condition. Nearing the end of her life, Sébire was suffering from significantly painful conditions but she continued to even refuse treatment for pain. Morphine would have effectively controlled most of her painful symptoms.
Sébire had the right to refuse medical treatment, and I would never argue otherwise, but it is disingenuous to refuse effective medical treatment or care and then claim to the public that you need to die by euthanasia because there was nothing that could be done for you.
Similar issues were central to the Latimer case. Robert said that the only way to stop Tracy Latimer’s suffering was to kill her. In fact, Robert had a phobia with medical treatment. This may be why the Latimer’s refused to have a feeding tube for Tracy and the reason why Robert finally refused surgery on Tracy’s hip by gassing her to death in his pick-up truck.
Just the facts.
French Euthanasia Case Rumbles On
By Bruce Crumley/Paris, Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2008
Find this article at http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1726787,00.html
Now I learn that Sébire had constantly refused treatment for her condition that would have likely returned her to a healthy condition. Nearing the end of her life, Sébire was suffering from significantly painful conditions but she continued to even refuse treatment for pain. Morphine would have effectively controlled most of her painful symptoms.
Sébire had the right to refuse medical treatment, and I would never argue otherwise, but it is disingenuous to refuse effective medical treatment or care and then claim to the public that you need to die by euthanasia because there was nothing that could be done for you.
Similar issues were central to the Latimer case. Robert said that the only way to stop Tracy Latimer’s suffering was to kill her. In fact, Robert had a phobia with medical treatment. This may be why the Latimer’s refused to have a feeding tube for Tracy and the reason why Robert finally refused surgery on Tracy’s hip by gassing her to death in his pick-up truck.
Just the facts.
French Euthanasia Case Rumbles On
By Bruce Crumley/Paris, Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2008
Find this article at http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1726787,00.html
Friday, April 4, 2008
Suicide machine sparks outrage
This is a very sad and yet important article.
I ask the question: how does the public react to people who take the law into their own hands, such as Roger Kusch with his suicide machine. Some suggest that it leads people to become concerned, while others say that it forces the question into the political arena.
Some people argue that since assisted suicide happens already, therefore it should be legalized and regulated by the government. This is a false arguement. Many things happen already that threat individuals in society, and it would threaten the common good to simply regulate certain acts that must be prohibited.
Their is a gap in our western culture between radical individual autonomy and the need for the common good. Their is another gap in society based on the view of the nature of the human person - whether human life has inherent dignity, or humans are simply a higher animal.
The question that people fail to consider is: "Why is homicide(euthanasia), and assisted suicide illegal in the first place?" Some people say that it is just connected to a religious intolerant past.
The reality is that society must not allow one person to have the legal right to take the life of another person. The protection of the individual and the basis of equality of all human lives depends on a prohibition of euthanasia and assisted suicide.
To allow the killing of people, even for the most difficult circumstances leads to the direct threat to the lives of vulnerable persons, whose lives are already considered by many to be not worth living. The sad reality is that many of these people have been so abandoned by the attitude of radical individual autonomy that they themselves have even been made to feel that they are better off dead and they can succomb to the false ideology of compassion and choice which is neither compassionate or truly a choice.
Society needs to protect the lives of vulnerable persons, people with disabilities, the frail elderly, people who live with chronic conditions or depression. The common good for all in society demands that we care for people and not kill them.
April 4, 2008
Suicide machine sparks outrage
By CNN's Berlin Bureau Chief Frederik Pleitgen
Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/04/germany.euthanasia/index.html
I ask the question: how does the public react to people who take the law into their own hands, such as Roger Kusch with his suicide machine. Some suggest that it leads people to become concerned, while others say that it forces the question into the political arena.
Some people argue that since assisted suicide happens already, therefore it should be legalized and regulated by the government. This is a false arguement. Many things happen already that threat individuals in society, and it would threaten the common good to simply regulate certain acts that must be prohibited.
Their is a gap in our western culture between radical individual autonomy and the need for the common good. Their is another gap in society based on the view of the nature of the human person - whether human life has inherent dignity, or humans are simply a higher animal.
The question that people fail to consider is: "Why is homicide(euthanasia), and assisted suicide illegal in the first place?" Some people say that it is just connected to a religious intolerant past.
The reality is that society must not allow one person to have the legal right to take the life of another person. The protection of the individual and the basis of equality of all human lives depends on a prohibition of euthanasia and assisted suicide.
To allow the killing of people, even for the most difficult circumstances leads to the direct threat to the lives of vulnerable persons, whose lives are already considered by many to be not worth living. The sad reality is that many of these people have been so abandoned by the attitude of radical individual autonomy that they themselves have even been made to feel that they are better off dead and they can succomb to the false ideology of compassion and choice which is neither compassionate or truly a choice.
Society needs to protect the lives of vulnerable persons, people with disabilities, the frail elderly, people who live with chronic conditions or depression. The common good for all in society demands that we care for people and not kill them.
April 4, 2008
Suicide machine sparks outrage
By CNN's Berlin Bureau Chief Frederik Pleitgen
Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/04/germany.euthanasia/index.html
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
We need to care for people and not kill them
The cases of Chantal Sebire and Clara Blanc will naturally affect the emotions of every person. One may say, that if euthanasia were legal, these would be cases that many people would feel qualify for the act.
The question we need to ask is: "What does it mean to be a human person?"
I contend that a human person is not merely a physical being. Our dignity and quality of life is not determined by our physical characteristics alone.
Intentionally and directly causing the death of people by euthanasia or assisted suicide, even for the most difficult cases, results in a change within our social fabric that will only lead to furthering the social conditions that lead to the hopelessness and despair that is connected to calls for euthanasia.
What we really need is to change our attitudes by becoming a more caring society. People need to care for others, in such a way as to eliminate the abandonment that exists within society that leads people to consider euthanasia.
Whether it be the health care system, or people of good-will extending themselves to others, we need to create a culture that encourages people to care for others.
Clara Blanc should be experiencing true dignity by being cared for by her friends, family, and community. She should feel that her community values her even when she is living with a rare genetic condition.
As a society we need to develop new and better methods of controlling physical pain but we primarily need to recognize that the human person is a social, psychological, emotional and spiritual being.
The most effective way to care for the other is by "being with" the other. It is when we feel alone, abandoned and unwanted that we experience depression and lonliness that directly create the demand for euthanasia.
We need to care for people and not kill them.
Find this article at http://www.agi.it:80/world/news/200804011833-cro-ren0081-art.html
The question we need to ask is: "What does it mean to be a human person?"
I contend that a human person is not merely a physical being. Our dignity and quality of life is not determined by our physical characteristics alone.Intentionally and directly causing the death of people by euthanasia or assisted suicide, even for the most difficult cases, results in a change within our social fabric that will only lead to furthering the social conditions that lead to the hopelessness and despair that is connected to calls for euthanasia.
What we really need is to change our attitudes by becoming a more caring society. People need to care for others, in such a way as to eliminate the abandonment that exists within society that leads people to consider euthanasia.
Whether it be the health care system, or people of good-will extending themselves to others, we need to create a culture that encourages people to care for others.
Clara Blanc should be experiencing true dignity by being cared for by her friends, family, and community. She should feel that her community values her even when she is living with a rare genetic condition.
As a society we need to develop new and better methods of controlling physical pain but we primarily need to recognize that the human person is a social, psychological, emotional and spiritual being.
The most effective way to care for the other is by "being with" the other. It is when we feel alone, abandoned and unwanted that we experience depression and lonliness that directly create the demand for euthanasia.
We need to care for people and not kill them.
Find this article at http://www.agi.it:80/world/news/200804011833-cro-ren0081-art.html
Monday, March 31, 2008
Death for hire - suicide machine lets you push final button
Comment by Alex Schadenberg
From American euthanasia crusader Jack Kevorkian to Roger Kusch the promoter of the suicide machine in Germany, the concept of causing death has become the new social problem to be solved by a technological innovation.
Kevorkian began his campaign with the death-machine, therefore it is nothing new to notice that Kusch is beginning his death campaign by copying Kevorkian. Nothing new.
Meanwhile Dignitas in Switzerland has decided to use the Plastic Bag and Helium method to assist the suicides of their death tourists. In case that isn’t enough for Ludwig Minelli, the director of Dignitas, Minelli has written a book on how to commit suicide. The advantage to the plastic bag method is that it doesn't require a physician to prescribe death drugs and therefore is free of any regulations.
The general public is constantly told that euthanasia needs to be legalized to allow people to die with dignity. Since when did dying by donning a plastic bag over one’s head become a dignified death? Since when did a suicide machine become a social innovation?
Society needs to recognize that the death purveyors are becoming desperate to gain acceptance for killing. They claim to be concerned about "compassion" and "mercy" but are really looking for death on demand.
They are willing to accept laws that legalize euthanasia with a veneer of safeguards in order to create societal acceptance for killing people at the most vulnerable time in their life.
But as Dr. Rob Jonquiére, the chief executive officer of NVVE - the Right to Die Society in the Netherlands stated at the World Federation of Right to Die Society conference in Toronto in 2006, the final goal of their organization is to gain approval for the "last-will-pill" that would be available for people who are not suffering but who are "tired of living".
The death culture also likes to juxtapose itself to "religious fundamentalism". The reality is that people with disabilities, who are the strongest opponents to euthanasia, tend not to be religious fundamentalists. This is just another ploy to label the opposition of the culture of death.
Whether it be a last-will-pill, a suicide machine, a suicide bag, the death movement has become a radical ideology that worships death.
Remember, this is not about terminal illness, it is not about compassion for the dying, this is not about ending suffering. This is about having someone end your life at the time of your choosing or to for society to allow someone to end the lives of vulnerable people who do not realize that they are better off dead.
End of comment
March 29, 2008
Death for hire - suicide machine lets you push final button
Roger Boyes in Berlin
From The Times
Find this article at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3641866.ece
From American euthanasia crusader Jack Kevorkian to Roger Kusch the promoter of the suicide machine in Germany, the concept of causing death has become the new social problem to be solved by a technological innovation.
Kevorkian began his campaign with the death-machine, therefore it is nothing new to notice that Kusch is beginning his death campaign by copying Kevorkian. Nothing new.
Meanwhile Dignitas in Switzerland has decided to use the Plastic Bag and Helium method to assist the suicides of their death tourists. In case that isn’t enough for Ludwig Minelli, the director of Dignitas, Minelli has written a book on how to commit suicide. The advantage to the plastic bag method is that it doesn't require a physician to prescribe death drugs and therefore is free of any regulations.
The general public is constantly told that euthanasia needs to be legalized to allow people to die with dignity. Since when did dying by donning a plastic bag over one’s head become a dignified death? Since when did a suicide machine become a social innovation?
Society needs to recognize that the death purveyors are becoming desperate to gain acceptance for killing. They claim to be concerned about "compassion" and "mercy" but are really looking for death on demand.
They are willing to accept laws that legalize euthanasia with a veneer of safeguards in order to create societal acceptance for killing people at the most vulnerable time in their life.
But as Dr. Rob Jonquiére, the chief executive officer of NVVE - the Right to Die Society in the Netherlands stated at the World Federation of Right to Die Society conference in Toronto in 2006, the final goal of their organization is to gain approval for the "last-will-pill" that would be available for people who are not suffering but who are "tired of living".
The death culture also likes to juxtapose itself to "religious fundamentalism". The reality is that people with disabilities, who are the strongest opponents to euthanasia, tend not to be religious fundamentalists. This is just another ploy to label the opposition of the culture of death.
Whether it be a last-will-pill, a suicide machine, a suicide bag, the death movement has become a radical ideology that worships death.
Remember, this is not about terminal illness, it is not about compassion for the dying, this is not about ending suffering. This is about having someone end your life at the time of your choosing or to for society to allow someone to end the lives of vulnerable people who do not realize that they are better off dead.
End of comment
March 29, 2008
Death for hire - suicide machine lets you push final button
Roger Boyes in Berlin
From The Times
Find this article at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3641866.ece
Councillor suggests euthanasia to reduce children in care
Whether it was meant as a joke or whether Councillor Hugh Jackson was serious, it appears that negative comments related to the lives of vulnerable people are becoming a regular news-making item in the UK.
In response to the issue of the cost of housing and caring for children in the care of the government Councillor Hugh Jackson suggested that euthanasia might be the way to cut the number of children in care.
Thankfully, other councillors and most of the public have responded to the remarks with outrage.
Considering the acceptance of the Groningen Protocol in the Netherlands and the fact that Belgium legislators are considering extending euthanasia to newborns in their country, sadly Jackson's comments aren't far from reality.
Last week a prominent Church of Scotland minister suggested that too much money was spent in Britain on old people who are clinging to life. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/27/nold127.xml
Once again, the cost of caring for the most vulnerable people in society, whether they be people with disabilities, children in care, some of whom have disabilities, or the frail elderly, is being questioned within the context of their cost to society.
My concern is due to an aging population that there is a growing negative trend toward vulnerable persons in society, that is fueling a push to legalize euthanasia. Even-though the promotion of euthanasia will be sold to the public as a “freedom of choice” issue, it will in fact result in the euthanasia deaths of many vulnerable people who are already deemed to be too costly for care.
Remember, euthanasia is not about personal autonomy, it is about giving the right to another person (usually physicians) to kill a person for reasons that are defined by the government.
Councillor suggests euthanasia to reduce children in care
News Guardian - March 28, 2008
By DAVID SEDGWICK
Find this article at www.newsguardian.co.uk/latest-news/Councillor-suggests-euthanasia-to-reduce.3924857.jp
In response to the issue of the cost of housing and caring for children in the care of the government Councillor Hugh Jackson suggested that euthanasia might be the way to cut the number of children in care.
Thankfully, other councillors and most of the public have responded to the remarks with outrage.
Considering the acceptance of the Groningen Protocol in the Netherlands and the fact that Belgium legislators are considering extending euthanasia to newborns in their country, sadly Jackson's comments aren't far from reality.
Last week a prominent Church of Scotland minister suggested that too much money was spent in Britain on old people who are clinging to life. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/27/nold127.xml
Once again, the cost of caring for the most vulnerable people in society, whether they be people with disabilities, children in care, some of whom have disabilities, or the frail elderly, is being questioned within the context of their cost to society.
My concern is due to an aging population that there is a growing negative trend toward vulnerable persons in society, that is fueling a push to legalize euthanasia. Even-though the promotion of euthanasia will be sold to the public as a “freedom of choice” issue, it will in fact result in the euthanasia deaths of many vulnerable people who are already deemed to be too costly for care.
Remember, euthanasia is not about personal autonomy, it is about giving the right to another person (usually physicians) to kill a person for reasons that are defined by the government.
Councillor suggests euthanasia to reduce children in care
News Guardian - March 28, 2008
By DAVID SEDGWICK
Find this article at www.newsguardian.co.uk/latest-news/Councillor-suggests-euthanasia-to-reduce.3924857.jp
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Teenagers and parents of infants may be given the right to choose euthanasia in Belgium
The following article presents a seemingly rational idea, that opens the door of euthanasia and assisted suicide to essentially everyone.
Once a society has accepted the killing of one group of people for a set of circumstances then what will stop that society from accepting the killing of all groups of people for similar circumstances.
The only factors that will hold the Belgium government back from making euthanasia more widely available is the ability of a person to consent to their death, and how far do they wish to extend the concept of suffering? But when did euthanasia or assisted suicide have anything to do with consent? It is about having the right to "choose" to end your life, or giving someone else the right to kill you when you would have "rationally chosen" to do so. If people with a certain condition have the right to end "suffering" through euthanasia, then why would it be wrong to end the suffering for someone in a similar condition who cannot consent? In fact consent only stands in the way of providing "release of suffering" that may someday be seen as a human right.
The issue of suffering also relates to infant euthanasia. The problem is that it is difficult to access to what degree an infant is suffering. But why let current suffering be the criteria, when an infant with disabilities is bound to suffer in the future. Why not end a life to pre-empt the child from suffering.
In the recent review of the Groningen Protocol by Lindemann and Verkerk in the Hastings Center Report - Jan/Feb 2008 the authors refer to the Groningen Protocol as allowing euthanasia based on the idea of future suffering. The authors state: "The protocol thus leaves room for cases in which the suffering will take place in the future. This forward-thinking feature of the protocol is justified on the grounds that it is inhumane to keep a baby alive until it begins to experience intolerable suffering."
Remember, the issue of euthanasia is not about terminal illness, it is not about individual autonomy, it is not about suffering. It is about ending life based on individual autonomy or ending lives that are not worth living.
In other words. You can't have a little bit of euthanasia because if it is deemed to be a "good action" then why wouldn't it be "good" for everyone.
Teens need right to 'medically assisted suicide'
By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Telegraph.co.uk - March 26, 2008
Find this article at http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtmlxml=/news/2008/03/26/wbelgium126.xml
Once a society has accepted the killing of one group of people for a set of circumstances then what will stop that society from accepting the killing of all groups of people for similar circumstances.
The only factors that will hold the Belgium government back from making euthanasia more widely available is the ability of a person to consent to their death, and how far do they wish to extend the concept of suffering? But when did euthanasia or assisted suicide have anything to do with consent? It is about having the right to "choose" to end your life, or giving someone else the right to kill you when you would have "rationally chosen" to do so. If people with a certain condition have the right to end "suffering" through euthanasia, then why would it be wrong to end the suffering for someone in a similar condition who cannot consent? In fact consent only stands in the way of providing "release of suffering" that may someday be seen as a human right.
The issue of suffering also relates to infant euthanasia. The problem is that it is difficult to access to what degree an infant is suffering. But why let current suffering be the criteria, when an infant with disabilities is bound to suffer in the future. Why not end a life to pre-empt the child from suffering.
In the recent review of the Groningen Protocol by Lindemann and Verkerk in the Hastings Center Report - Jan/Feb 2008 the authors refer to the Groningen Protocol as allowing euthanasia based on the idea of future suffering. The authors state: "The protocol thus leaves room for cases in which the suffering will take place in the future. This forward-thinking feature of the protocol is justified on the grounds that it is inhumane to keep a baby alive until it begins to experience intolerable suffering."
Remember, the issue of euthanasia is not about terminal illness, it is not about individual autonomy, it is not about suffering. It is about ending life based on individual autonomy or ending lives that are not worth living.
In other words. You can't have a little bit of euthanasia because if it is deemed to be a "good action" then why wouldn't it be "good" for everyone.
Teens need right to 'medically assisted suicide'
By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Telegraph.co.uk - March 26, 2008
Find this article at http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtmlxml=/news/2008/03/26/wbelgium126.xml
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Definition of euthanasia
While writing the previous post I realized that a proper definition of euthanasia is necessary before one can effectively evaluate the moral decision making in relation to deep sedation.
Euthanasia is an intentional action or omission of an action that causes the death of the person for reasons of "mercy." That action or omission of an action is also the intentional cause of the death.
Euthanasia is an intentional action or omission of an action that causes the death of the person for reasons of "mercy." That action or omission of an action is also the intentional cause of the death.
The concern with deep sedation is only minimally related to the sedation itself, but primarily related to the withdrawal of fluids and food with the intention of causing death. People need to demand that fluids and food not be withheld during sedation, unless that person is very near to death.
When someone is very near to death, and their body is shutting down, fluids and food can be ethically withdrawn because they do not benefit the person and their withdrawal will not intentionally cause death.
Deep Sedation is often "slow euthanasia"
The question of the use of deep sedation in the Netherlands as the alternative form of euthanasia is an important question.
In the case of deep sedation, a person is usually sedated and then fluids and food are withdrawn resulting in an intentional death by dehydration or "slow euthanasia"
Intentionally killing someone by injection (or as Dignitas Clinic in Switzerland now use, a plastic bag and helium) usually takes several minutes and usually not more than one hour.
To intentionally kill someone by dehydration usually takes 10 - 14 days.
The problem with the moral assessment of deep sedation is that not all acts of deep sedation are related to decisions to intentionally kill the person. Sometimes, a person is very near to death and experiencing intractable pain. The person is sedated and dies within a few days. This is not euthanasia but in fact good palliative care.
Deep sedation can also be used in other cases when someone is not near to death but also experiencing intractable pain. These people can be sedated for several days, fluids and food should be continued, and after the short period of time the person comes out of the sedated state. These people are sometimes relaxed from their time of sedation and can be effectively treated for pain and symptom management without re-sedating them.
The point is: deep sedation can be used as a form of "slow euthanasia" or it can be effectively used as a form of good palliative care.
We must point out that when deep sedation is used as a form of euthanasia that this is an abuse of medical ethics and often an imposed death, whereby the family is not informed that the reason for the deep sedation is to cause the death of their family member.
Like all acts of euthanasia, deep sedation can be abused and is a direct threat to the lives of the most vulnerable people in our society who are not given the care and respect that is due a human person.
For more information contact Alex Schadenberg at: 1-877-439-3348.
http://uk.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=UKL2083327020080321
Study signals Dutch switch to drugs from euthanasia
Fri Mar 21, 2008
(Reporting by Michael Kahn; Editing by Maggie Fox and Matthew Jones)
The question of the use of deep sedation in the Netherlands as the alternative form of euthanasia is an important question.
In the case of deep sedation, a person is usually sedated and then fluids and food are withdrawn resulting in an intentional death by dehydration or "slow euthanasia"
Intentionally killing someone by injection (or as Dignitas Clinic in Switzerland now use, a plastic bag and helium) usually takes several minutes and usually not more than one hour.
To intentionally kill someone by dehydration usually takes 10 - 14 days.
The problem with the moral assessment of deep sedation is that not all acts of deep sedation are related to decisions to intentionally kill the person. Sometimes, a person is very near to death and experiencing intractable pain. The person is sedated and dies within a few days. This is not euthanasia but in fact good palliative care.
Deep sedation can also be used in other cases when someone is not near to death but also experiencing intractable pain. These people can be sedated for several days, fluids and food should be continued, and after the short period of time the person comes out of the sedated state. These people are sometimes relaxed from their time of sedation and can be effectively treated for pain and symptom management without re-sedating them.
The point is: deep sedation can be used as a form of "slow euthanasia" or it can be effectively used as a form of good palliative care.
We must point out that when deep sedation is used as a form of euthanasia that this is an abuse of medical ethics and often an imposed death, whereby the family is not informed that the reason for the deep sedation is to cause the death of their family member.
Like all acts of euthanasia, deep sedation can be abused and is a direct threat to the lives of the most vulnerable people in our society who are not given the care and respect that is due a human person.
For more information contact Alex Schadenberg at: 1-877-439-3348.
http://uk.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=UKL2083327020080321
Study signals Dutch switch to drugs from euthanasia
Fri Mar 21, 2008
(Reporting by Michael Kahn; Editing by Maggie Fox and Matthew Jones)
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Oregon Death With Dignity Act report
The number of reported deaths has risen in 2007 to 49 from 46 reported deaths in 2006. More interesting was the fact that the number of prescriptions rose to 85 in 2007 from 65 in 2006. 3 of the 49 deaths in 2007 received their prescription in 2006.
Out of the 85 prescriptions in 2007, 46 died from assisted suicide, 26 died of their underlying disease, 13 were alive at the end of 2007.
The most frequently mentioned end-of-life concerns were: loss of autonomy (100%), decreased ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (86%), and loss of dignity (86%). (33%) stated that they were concerned about inadequate pain control in 2007, which is up from (26%) in 2006. It must be noted that their is no differentiation in the report between a patients lack of adequate pain control at the time of asking for the prescription from a patients fear of inadequate pain in the future.
None of the people who died by assisted suicide were referred for a psychiatric or psychological evaluation in 2007. It appears that the "safeguards" in Oregon are either being ignored or every physician who prescribes death for their patients are also experts at detecting symptoms of depression.
Since 1997 - 341 patients have been reported to die from assisted suicide in Oregon.
By: Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
1-877-439-3348
info@epcc.ca
For a summary of the Oregon Death With Dignity Act annual report for 2007, issued 18 March 2008, go to: http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/orhttp://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year10.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)