Landscape Evolves for Assisted Suicide

An article written by Jane Gross and published in the New York Times examines the landscape or the changes in relation to the issue of assisted suicide since 1991 when Dr. Timothy Quill published an account of his role in the death of one of his patients.

The article makes some very interesting points that need to be examined further if we are to effectively respond to future initiatives to legalize assisted suicide.

The article describes the conditions for assisted suicide in Oregon and in the Washington statute. The article states:

State residents requesting this assistance must be mentally competent, have six months or less to live according to two physicians, wait 15 days after their request and then repeat that request orally and in writing. They must be capable of administering medication themselves and agree to counseling if their physicians request it. The patients also must be told of alternatives.

Dr. Timothy Quill, who is the director of the palliative care program at the University of Rochester then states:

these options have gained acceptance over the past decade.

The article then comments on the 1997 Supreme Court Decision:

In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide and upheld a prohibition against it. But in the ruling, the justices conceded that terminally ill patients were entitled to aggressive pain management, even if opiates or barbiturates had the “double effect” of hastening death.

This statement concerning the "double effect" principle is inappropriately worded because the use of opiates or barbituates for the aggressive management of pain when it is not intended to cause death, and therefore when properly administered, should not be associated with assisted suicide. A physician should not consider the "double effect" principle as an open window to euthanasia because that is an abuse of its proper use.

The article then quotes Quill concerning that options that should exist before one considers the "last resort" of assisted suicide. He states:

First and foremost, Dr. Quill and others say, all terminally ill patients should have access to palliative care, both to relieve pain and other symptoms and to provide emotional support to patients and families.

This statement begs the question, that is, when palliative care is not accessible for all people needing pain and symptom management, then is assisted suicide represents an abuse of the vulnerable person who is not actually seeking assisted suicide but rather relief from their suffering.

Quill recommends that a palliative care consultation be mandatory before anyone considers a "last resort" measure.

Quill suggests that other options be made known to the patient.
Pain management so aggressive that it may well hasten death, although that is not the primary intention. (This is the doctrine of “double effect.”)

Invoking a patient’s right to forgo life-sustaining therapies or discontinue them.

Voluntarily stopping eating and drinking. (Dr. Quill believes this is a “more morally complex” choice because over the last decade the practice has expanded beyond those with end-stage cancer or Alzheimer’s disease — who often lose interest in food or forget how to eat and drink — to people who are not “actively dying” but nevertheless have had enough of disability or dependence).

Sedation to the point of unconsciousness. (Although it was endorsed this year by a panel of the American Medical Association, Dr. Quill called it the “last, last resort.”)

Quill should acknowledge that people who voluntarily stop eating or drinking when they are not "actively dying" are often people who are suffering from undiagnosed clinical depression. Physicians should uphold a pledge that they will "do no harm" which should include protecting the vulnerable.

The primary concern around the sedation of a person to the point of unconsciousness is that usually sedation is done to intentional dehydrate of the person. It is sometimes necessary to sedate a person to the point of unconsciousness in order to relieve their neuropathic pain, but to intentionally dehydrate a person, who is not otherwise dying, is euthanasia by dehydration.

The article is correct when it states that the landscape has changed in relation to assisted suicide. What has not changed is the effect assisted suicide has on the attitude and treatment that is offered to people at the most vulnerable time of their life.

The question whether we need to strive for a culture that solves its difficult human problems by caring for the patient or a culure that solves its most difficult human problems by killing the patient?

I choose to care.

Link to the article on the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/health/11age.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Washington State moves to implement assisted suicide law

There are a few very important issues that are very concerning from this article about Washington State's plans to implement assisted suicide law.

First, the article states:

Washington is now the second state in the nation to have such a law, and officials may look to neighboring Oregon for a blueprint.

The State of Oregon has imposed a "closed" style of reporting, whereby the physician who prescribes assisted suicide fills out the report. This is a form of self reporting that doesn't ensure that accurate information is reported. There is no "third party" review of the reports and no investigations.

This form of reporting provides no "safe-guard" for the person who may be seeking assisted suicide.

Second, the article states:

Department of Health spokesman Tim Church said it won't have to create a new office or section within the agency. Under the measure, any health care provider writing a prescription or dispensing medication must file a copy of the record with the Health Department, which is required to create an annual statistical report on how the law is used.

Once again, this style of reporting does not provide any protection for the person who is receiving a prescription for assisted suicide. If the physician knows that the person is experiencing dementia and incapable of deciding for themselves, but decides to provide a prescription for lethal drugs anyway, there is no way for the authorities to know about this under this system.

Third, Anne Martens, the spokesperson for the right to die lobby stated:

"I don't anticipate any legislative tinkering, but you can never rule that out," she said. "The law as written is identical to the law that's been working in Oregon. We don't see any need to change any part of it."

I have already pointed out the lack of effective safeguards in Oregon, I hope Washington State will tinker with the rules.

It is also important to note that 73% of all assisted suicide deaths in Oregon are in some way facilitated by the Compassion & Choices lobby group. Therefore the group that is in favor of assisted suicide is also the group that is carrying it out.

How will we ever be able to prevent abuses when the fox is running the hen house. This should not happen in Washington State.

Fourth, Eileen Geller from the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide have indicated that they don't plan to be part of the implementation process. Eileen stated:

"We do not concede that Initiative 1000 is a law in this state, Right now for us every option is on the table. Legal is one of them."

Whereas I agree with Eileen that every option is on the table, I also recognize that if the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide is not part of the process for establishing the rules to operate the law that the end result will be a bad law with many abuses.

Just because assisted suicide is wrong and will result in the deaths of many vulnerable people, etc, that doesn't mean that we should not attempt to mitigate the evil by becoming part of the implementation committee.

Fifth, Jennifer Hunscom, the spokesperson for the Washington State Medical Association stated:

the organization has already started educating its more than 9,600 physicians about the new law. Information is on the group's Web site, and a newsletter was being sent to members.

Since the Washington State Medical Association continues to oppose physician assisted suicide as an act which is not an act for physicians to participate, therefore they should simply say - The Washington State Medical Association considers participation in assisted suicide to be against our code of ethics.

Physicians in Washington State should simply say no to assisted suicide.

Doctors are trained to heal and to care for their patients, not kill their patients.

Link to article in the Komo TV news:
http://www.komonews.com/news/34055014.html

German politician offers to assist the suicides of UK residents

Roger Kusch, a former politician was reported in the Sunday Mercury paper as stating that he has been contacted by people in the UK and he is willing to assist their suicides.

Kusch, said that he wanted Germany to replace Switzerland as the destination of choice for Death Tourism from the UK.

Speaking through an interpreter, Kusch said:

“In fact people from Britain have made most of all the inquiries we received from foreign countries.

“And I will go on in assisting people to commit suicide and talk about it.”

Kusch made world-wide headlines last April when he displayed his suicide machine which is a modified perfusor, which is a machine normally used to inject medication over a long period of time. He modified the perfusor by installing a button to allow his suicide victim to start the machine.

Dr. Peter Saunders from the Care Not Killing Alliance in the UK responded to Kusch by stating:

"This guy sounds like Dr Death.

He should be caring for people, not killing them.

In my experience a request for suicide is always a request for help.

Doctors working in palliative care for their whole career will tell you that they come across patients who want to commit suicide.

But once their basic needs are taken care of they could count the number of people who want to go through with it using the fingers on one hand.

In my career as a surgeon I only had two requests and both patients changed their minds once we responded to their own particular needs.

What people need to remember is that in the last five years just over 100 people have gone to Dignitas to die, but in that same time period over 3 million people have died of natural causes.

So no matter what people like Kusch argue, the demand is actually very small indeed.

For example take the case of Dan James. There are over 20,000 tetraplegics in Britain but the vast majority want the help to live, not to die.

I think he (Kusch) is profoundly misguided and is only increasing the risk that vulnerable people will be abused and exploited.

There is a reason assisted suicide is illegal in most of the world, and that is to protect people and increase public safety.

We at Care Not Killing believe that the answer does not lie in suicide but in improving the care for people in the first place.”

Kusch is very clear about his long term goals. He stated:

“We are fighting for the sovereign right of any person to die in dignity.”

Once again, euthanasia and assisted suicide is not about terminal illness, or physical suffering, but rather a univeral right to die for any person who is tired of living.

There have been a number of Private Members Bills related to this issue in recent years (including the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill) and the Government’s stance has been to remain neutral and to listen to the debate.

Link to the article in the Sunday Mercury:
http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/midlands-news/2008/11/08/german-medic-wants-to-help-midlanders-die-66331-22212718/

Link to previous article about Roger Kusch:
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/04/suicide-machine-sparks-outrage.html

Medical providers in Washington State say they won't assist with suicides.

An article in the November 6th edition of the spokesman review paper in Spokane Washington indicated that Providence, the State's largest healthcare provider, will not support assisted suicide, even though the new assisted suicide law will take effect in July 2009.

Karina Jennings, the Providence spokesperson stated:

We do not believe health care providers should ever be put in a position of aiding a patient in taking his or her own life.

We believe we don't have to participate and plan to exercise a conscience clause allowing us to be exempt.

Similarly the Washington State Medical Association was outspoken in its opposition to assisted suicide.

Jennifer Lawrence Hanscom, the spokesperson for the Washington State Medical Association stated that they oppose assisted suicide and support the repeal of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. She said:

assisted suicide runs counter to the Hippocratic Oath, which directs them to do no harm.

The Hospice of Spokane stated:

Hospice of Spokane's life-affirming care is intended to neither hasten nor prolong death. Rather it is about providing patients with the best possible quality of life in the time they have remaining.

The non-profit organization does not practice physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. They also said that they will not deny or discontinue hospice care to patients who are considering seeking help to end their lives.

The Washington State Medical Association needs to maintain its opposition to assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is not a medical practise fitting the human person.

Link to the Spokesman Review article:
http://www.spokesmanreview.com:80/breaking/story.asp?ID=17609

Link to Wesley Smith's blog on the same topic:
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/11/resistance-begins-declaring-non.html

Washington State passes I-1000 assisted suicide Initiative - Just the beginning

Voters in Washington State have passed the I-1000 assisted suicide Initiative, thereby legalizing "Oregon Style" assisted suicide in their state. The Initiative 1000 passed by a 58 - 42 percent margin.

Exit polling data shows that people who identified themselves as conservatives opposed assisted suicide by a 66 - 34 percent, liberals supported assisted suicide by 81 - 19 percent and moderates supported assisted suicide by 63 - 37 percent.

Voters who considered themselves religious, either Protestant or Catholic, voted 50 - 50 percent. I guess the religious community were not convinced that the vulnerable in our society are not in need of legal protection.

Those who have followed my comments on this initiative will realize how grave a decision Washington State voters have made.

Assisted Suicide directly threatens the lives of the most vulnerable people in our culture. People with disabilities the dependent elderly, those who live with depression and mental illness and the poor will be directly threatened by assisted suicide in Washington State.

For people who believe that the I-1000 assisted suicide Initiative will not lead to a slippery slope then you need to read the comments made by Ted Goodwin, President of the Final Exit Network. Goodwin stated in a press release today:

November 5, 2008
Olympia, WA

Although the supporters of Initiative I-1000 are delighted that Washington becomes the second state to pass a "Death with Dignity Act", there is much more to be done.

Ted Goodwin, President of Final Exit Network, said, "We congratulate all those who worked so hard to achieve this important right for Washington's citizens, and we applaud the citizens of Washington State for making the right choice. "Final Exit Network and its members supported passage of this landmark initiative by donating to the advocacy effort spearheaded by Washington Death with Dignity and former Governor Booth Gardner. However, the job is not finished".

Although, like Oregon's "Death with Dignity Act," I-1000 gives doctors the authority to prescribe a lethal dose of medications to terminally ill individuals under strict controls, it condemns to continued suffering as many as 40% of those who desperately want to end their life because of intolerable suffering but cannot under the law because their illness is not diagnosed as "terminal".

"Unfortunately," said Goodwin, "many patients do not meet I-1000's strict criteria. Individuals with neurological illnesses such as Parkinson's disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Muscular Dystrophy, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease) and Alzheimer's disease often lose the reason and will to live long before their disease qualifies as 'terminal'." Goodwin adds, "For these individuals, neither I-1000 nor the Oregon law go far enough. "That is why Final Exit Network pledges, until laws protect the right of every adult to a peaceful, dignified death, Final Exit Network will be there to support those who need relief from their suffering today!"

"The Network's Exit Guide Program is available nationwide," Goodwin said. "With the Network's compassionate guidance and support, physically and mentally competent adults in all fifty states are free to exercise their last human right - the right to a peaceful, dignified death. "Final Exit Network is the only organization in the United States that will support individuals who are not "terminally ill" - 6 months or less to live - to hasten their deaths. No other organization in the US makes this commitment," said Goodwin.

Goodwin and other leaders in the euthanasia lobby will continue to push for changes until they have achieved their goal - death on demand.

Goodwin's ideology and the Compassion & Choices lobby plans are very similar. Compassion & Choices, the leading euthanasia lobby group are interested in spreading acceptance for assisted suicide before expanding its application. Compassion & Choices will focus on the next State initiatives to legalize assisted suicide. Those initiatives may include another ballot initiative or they may first attempt another legislative proposal.

Once Compassion & Choices have legalized assisted suicide in enough states, they too will seek to expand its application through legislative changes to existing statutes or through the courts.

Among his other comments, Wesley Smith commented on the support from the media and the liberal elite who have given incredible sums of money to support the euthanasia lobby.

Smith then says:

Meanwhile, the opposition is generally starved for funds, marginalized in the popular media, and as a consequence, always stuck in reactive mode when we need to be proactive.

But we can't do it alone. If people and foundations wish to stop this juggernaut, they are going to have to do what proponents have done and step forward and give those of us willing to give our all to fighting the death culture the resources we need to compete. If they don't, there will be more Washington States.

Anyone who still says "it can't happen here," isn't paying attention. It is happening here, and it will happen here increasingly unless there is a greater commitment shown by those with means who oppose these agendas to reversing the current course.

Link to Wesley Smith's blog:
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com:80/blog/2008/11/dire-straights-assisted-suicide-passes.html

For further analysis of the Washington State I-1000 assisted suicide Initiative go to the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/washington.htm

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International will continue to build a unified and organized effort of groups who are working to create a cultural barrier to euthanasia and assisted suicide while stemming the tide of the euthanasia lobby.

It is very difficult to organize and unify our efforts when we lack the necessary funds to build a stronger and more inclusive infrastructure.

Smith is correct. You will need to decide whether you are willing to invest in our work. Your support will enable us to build an effective opposition to the juggernaut of the euthanasia lobby.

It is your decision.

We know that the euthanasia lobby will continue to push their radical agenda until the right to die, becomes a duty to die.

To support or join the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, contact:
Website: www.epcc.ca
Email: info@epcc.ca
Call toll free: 1-877-439-3348

P.S. The comments by Mark Mostert on the disability matters blog are worth reading:
http://disabilitymatters.blogspot.com/2008/11/in-washington-state-doctors-of-death.html

Ottawa physician provides hope

In a letter to the Ottawa citizen - Ottawa Physician Rene Leiva writes about how he, and others, can help those suffering to find meaning beyond human limitations:

Leiva wrote:

The most challenging clinical cases usually are the ones where patients are suffering from existential distress, or in other words, loss of purpose in life in the face of suffering. I would also name it "depression of the soul." Fortunately, there are ways to approach these problems.

One that I use frequently and I teach medical residents is the one developed by the great Jewish psychiatrist, Viktor Frankl. After losing his family and surviving a concentration camp, he managed to write his masterpiece Man's search for meaning. In it, he makes the point that people can find meaning in life: by creating a work or doing a deed, by experiencing something or encountering someone (the meaning of love) and by the attitude one takes toward unavoidable suffering (the meaning in suffering). He was fond of repeating Nietzsche's words: "He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how."

He challenges us to go beyond ourselves and move to a level where we can find meaning outside our own human limitations.

I heard of a South American young man dying of AIDS and complicated with a rare type of cancer. His daily request was to be euthanized. His treating physician asked one of the hospital volunteers to offer to visit him. The doctor noted his request stopped, and one week later, the doctor asked the man why he was not interested in euthanasia anymore. His response was: "I do not want to die; now, I have a friend."

In the face of unavoidable suffering, this man chose to find meaning in encountering someone. It is a personal choice, one which a physician does make for the patient.

At the end, as Viktor Frankl says: "love is the only way to grasp another human being in the innermost core of his personality."

René Leiva, MD,

We need more physicians like Rene Leiva who choose to care for their patients and reject the concept of killing them.

Link to the letter in the Ottawa Citizen:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/letters/story.html?id=fd8ea80b-e75d-43ad-b503-46a12b4e1a96

Swiss assisted suicide clinic offers death for people who are "Tired of Living".

Researchers from the University of Zurich and the University of Applied Sciences have released a study that proves that the Dignitas and Exit assisted suicide clinics are assisting in the deaths of people who are not terminally ill, but rather "tired of living".

Susanne Fischer, who co-authored the study on assisted suicide at the two clinics, explained that:

* 421 people who had assisted suicide between 2001 and 2004 in Zurich - 274 were Dignitas deaths, 147 were Exit deaths and compared them to 149 assisted suicide deaths by Exit from 1990 - 2000.
* 79% of assisted suicide deaths at Dignitas were terminally ill.
* 67% of assisted suicide deaths at Exit were terminally ill.
* 78% of assisted suicide deaths at Exit were terminally ill (1990 - 2000)

Bernard Sutter, a member of Exit's board told Reuters:

"We help only people with fatal diseases or who are very seriously ill. For the last 12 years, the number suffering from fatal diseases has always been the same, between 65 - 75 percent. The rest, maybe a third or less, are very ill."

Sutter said:

"We work with doctors who have their medical code and will not issue a prescription (for lethal drugs) if someone is not in a bad state."

Assisted suicide has been allowed in Switzerland since the 1940's if done by a non-physician who has no vested interest in the death. Both Exit and Dignitas usually use lethal drugs prescribed by a physician to end the lives.

Earlier this year, Ludwig Minelli, the founder and director of the Dignitas clinic, stated that they were using the plastic bag with helium method for assisted suicide. This method eliminates the need for a physician to agree to assisting the death. Even physicians who support assisted suicide will often refuse to write lethal prescriptions for people who are not dying or suffering.

The Reuters article stated that:

Between 2001 and 2004, 91 percent of those who died through Dignitas were foreigners, mostly from Germany, France and Britain. Only 3 percent of those turning to Exit came from abroad, according to the researchers.

Link to the artice from Reuters:
http://in.reuters.com:80/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36322720081104

Link to previous blog comment on the Dignitas assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland:
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/04/euthanasia-trends-in-europe-by-alex.html

Ideas have consequences

Response to Russel Ogden by Christina Alarcon

I would like to invite Mr. Ogden to read “A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America” written by Canadian historian Ian Dowbiggin of the University of PEI. Doing so, he would realize that his ideas about assisted suicide and euthanasia date as far back as the early 1900’s. His linking of the right to die to abortion rights also goes back to the 1960’s ideology that an individual may do as he/she wishes with his/her own body. What Ogden has perhaps not reflected on is the possibility that ideas have consequences. For example, the theories and writings of German jurist Karl Binding were used by the Nazis to justify their T4 Euthanasia Program. As Dowbiggin documents, Binding started from the position that every person had the freedom to commit suicide. He then proceeded to justify voluntary euthanasia, then mercy killing of unconscious dying individuals, and finally the humane killing of state-dependent defectives. He believed that the benefits of legalized euthanasia would far outweigh the inevitable abuses.

History, as we all know, has proved him wrong. Closer to our day, in the 1990’s reports of massive abuses being carried out in Holland should put Canadians on the alert against accepting the legalization of mercy killing. Finally, if Ogden finds it ironic that those who most avidly oppose mercy-killing are those who believe most firmly in a blissful afterlife, I find it even more ironic that those who believe in no afterlife would want to destroy the only life they’ll ever have!

Cristina Alarcon, Vancouver pharmacist and Bioethicist

Washington State I-1000 assisted suicide Initiative: A price on your head

Commentary by: Margaret Datiles
Washington Times - Sunday, November 2, 2008

In May 2008, Barbara Wagner received a chilling rejection letter from her health-care insurance company. Employing a dollar-saving tactic, Mrs. Wagner's Oregon Health Plan denied coverage for medication that would treat her cancer and extend her life, but agreed to pay for less expensive medications to end her life.

Mrs. Wagner's lung cancer, which had been in remission for two years, had returned. Her doctor prescribed medication which would cost $4,000 per month, but the 64-year-old retired bus driver could not afford to pay. Mrs. Wagner's Oregon Health Plan administrators instead coldly offered to pay $50 for an assisted suicide. To them, that was all she was worth.

Mrs. Wagner and her family were devastated. "It was horrible," she said, tears flooding her eyes. "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor, and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."

Oregon soon may not be the only state saving money by denying coverage for lifesaving medications and encouraging suicide. The State of Washington is considering a ballot initiative that would allow the same dollar-saving opportunities for health-care insurance companies. Washington Initiative 1000 (I-1000) would legalize physician-assisted suicide and allow Washington health-care plans to financially pressure vulnerable patients into "choosing" assisted suicide.

Disturbing? Unfair? Even - dare we think it - unethical? Of course it is. But to those supporting assisted suicide - euphemistically and disingenuously called "death with dignity," that does not matter. And, if you are an over-strapped state with budget problems or a health-care insurance company looking to save money during the current economic crisis, it is a very tempting "quick fix." And so today, it's the citizens of Washington state being asked to put a price on the heads of the weak among them. But it's not just the state that can profit.

As proposed, I-1000 allows patients to receive and self-administer lethal medications if they meet cursory, unprotective, and medically unsound prerequisites. But heirs looking to inherit early could participate in requesting lethal drugs for their parents, administer those drugs, and no one will ever question what happened.

For example, a written request for death-inducing medication could be witnessed by a person with a financial interest in a patient's estate. Further, the proposed definition for "self-administer" would allow someone other than the patient - such as an heir to the patient's estate - to administer the lethal dose. To top it all off, I-1000 does not require any witnesses to the assisted suicide. This leaves no assurance that a patient took his own life and someone else did not take it for him.

For those concerned with ensuring health care for the sick, protecting those in poverty from involuntary assisted suicide, and who would rather see the elderly cared for than knocked off for the inheritance, there is much reason for alarm.

I-1000 also requires physicians to falsify death certificates in cases of assisted suicide. Physicians must state the underlying illness as the cause of death and are prohibited from naming "suicide," "assisted suicide," or "drug overdose" as the cause of death. Thus, if an eager heir decides to facilitate a patient's suicide, his tracks would be covered.

If that were not enough, I-1000 does not require family notification. Loving family members could be denied the opportunity to see and speak with loved ones who decide to prematurely end their lives. A patient's husband or wife may not find out about their spouse's decision until after their spouse is already dead and, even then, may not learn the true cause of death since the physician would be not be permitted to list "assisted suicide" on the death certificate.

This irreparably changes the standard of care for the mentally ill. Patients suffering from depression and other common, treatable mental illnesses are put in life-threatening danger by I-1000. Patients who request assisted suicide would not undergo routine psychological assessment or treatment. Rather, he would be given the "quick fix" - a prescription for lethal medications. Democratic Washington State Sen. Margarita Prentice has asserted "there is nothing to protect those suffering from psychological distress... [t]his very dangerous initiative would never have passed the legislature."

Lastly, physicians are given absolute immunity from liability. According to the initiative's "good faith" standard, physicians who are negligent, violate patient safeguards, fail to report assisted suicides or file inaccurate reports are completely immune from liability. The physician's oath to "do no harm" would be obliterated.

If I-1000 passes in Washington, we can expect an immediate deluge of similar measures nationwide. In 2005, the Oregon-based assisted-suicide advocacy group, Death with Dignity National Center (DDNC), drew out a plan to export the practice of physician-assisted suicide beyond the borders of Oregon to the entire nation. That plan was called the "Oregon plus One" plan. According to this plan, if just one other state besides Oregon were to legalize physician-assisted suicide, it would start a domino effect and the country would soon follow.

The DDNC's 2007 annual report revealed that the group spent the year "researching and collecting data to determine the state which is most likely to adopt a [physician-assisted suicide law].... Through these efforts [they]... identified Washington as that state." Since this determination, DDNC has poured all of its efforts into legalizing physician-assisted suicide in Washington, allocating $1.5 million in support of I-1000.

If I-1000 is enacted, don't be surprised if your state is next on the list. Next time, it could be your mother who is denied coverage for needed medications and offered coverage only for assisted suicide. It could be your spouse who commits suicide without your knowledge. It could be your son or daughter who is handed death-inducing drugs while going through treatable depression. Or it could be you.

Link to commentary printed in the Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/02/a-price-on-your-head/

J. Margaret Datiles is staff counsel for Americans United for Life representing the interests of the weakest citizens of the United States and abroad.

The media's love affair with suicide outlaws

Wesley Smith has blogged an interesting article about Russel Ogden.

Ogden is a criminologist in British Columbia who is fascinated by suicide and assisted suicide. He claims to be a researcher and not an activist.

Decide for yourself.

Link to Wesley Smith's blog comment:
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/11/medias-love-affair-with-suicide-outlaws.html

Link to the article in the Vancouver Sun:
http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/thesearch/archive/2008/11/01/hard-headed-researcher-of-300-suicides-maintains-he-s-pro-life.aspx

Link to previous blog article concerning Russel Ogden:
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/07/professor-wants-to-witness-assisted.html

Lord Joffe to introduce assisted suicide bill

Lord Joffe will once again attempt to legalize assisted suicide in the UK by resurrecting his Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill that was blocked by the House of Lords two years ago.

This time he plans to use the story of Debbie Purdy to gain support for his cause.

Joffe told The Times that he decided to take action so that family and friends who wished to help to end their loved ones' suffering would know whether or not they were committing an offence.

Joffe also said:

"First we want to get a debate going before we introduce the Bill, so the issue has been explored in the public arena. The introduction of the Bill will be sooner rather than later. It will be a question of when time in the parliamentary calendar can be found to consider a Private Member's Bill."

"The purpose of a Bill is for a change in the law to prevent unnecessary suffering. But we would only be looking at people who are terminally ill."

It is interesting that Joffe is using the Purdy case to promote his efforts to legalize assisted suicide. Purdy is not terminally ill and with good care, she can remain comfortable and live with dignity.

Alison Davis from No Less Human stated that:

If Lord Joffe’s Bill had been law then, I would have qualified for “assisted dying” and I have no doubt whatsoever that I would have requested it.

Leaders of the disability rights movement, such as Davis, recognize that assisted suicide directly threatens their lives due to social attitudes and subtle pressures that exist within society.

Link to article about Alison Davis
http://www.notdeadyetuk.org/alisondavies.php

Lord Joffe is also wanting to appear to be a moderate within the confines of the euthanasia lobby. Joffe's comments at the World Federation of Right to Die Societies Conference in Toronto in 2006 would make you believe that his Bill would be a first measure to legalize assisted suicide. The wording of the previous Bill was based on what the euthanasia lobby believed would be considered acceptable at that time in history.

Link to the article from the Times online:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/business/law/article5042490.ece

Australian government will maintain a national internet filter

The Australian government is implementing a national internet filter to protect its citizens from controversial websites that promote child pornography, certain "adult" content, euthanasia (suicide promotion) and anorexia promotion.

Information about the national internet filter has been revealed by US tech giants Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and a coalition of human rights and other groups who have unveiled a new code of conduct that is aimed at safeguarding freedom of speech and privacy.

The Australian government passed a law forbidding the distribution of child pornography. The Australian government also passed a law forbidding suicide promoting websites.

The article concerning freedom of speech compares the measures taken by the Australian government to protect its citizens from predatory websites to the internet filters that have been implemented by the Chinese government. This is very inaccurate.

Link to the article from the Australian Herald Sun:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24568137-2862,00.html

The fact is that Australia is one of several nations that are attempting to protect vulnerable citizens from suicide promoting websites. Korea, Japan and the UK are also known to be attempting by either by urging internet service providers to voluntarily block these predatory websites or to be moving to interpret the Criminal Code to enable the police to prosecute people who promote suicide via the internet or other communications medium.

I am convinced that blocking suicide promotion websites does not constitute a violation of free speech but rather a reasonable limit in the same way as protecting people from child pornography.

We must remember that people who live with depression and mental illness are often unable to effectively filter out the negative thoughts that are promoted by these websites. They will often commit suicide by following the instructions from these websites.

We need to protect people from the criminally irresponsible who continue to endanger the life and health of others by promoting suicide or suicide methods via the internet.

Link to article on the UK government blocking suicide promoting websites:
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/09/uk-government-to-target-suicide.html

Link to article on the Korean government blocking suicide promoting websites:
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/09/south-korea-takes-measures-to-tackle.html

Link to article on the Japanese government blocking suicide promoting websites:
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/05/japan-looks-to-lower-suicide-rate.html

Margo MacDonald bids to change law on assisted suicide in Scotland

Margo MacDonald MSP announced her intention to bring a Member's Bill to the Scottish Parliament to legalize assisted suicide in Scotland.

MacDonald, a member of the Independent Lothians party, said it should not be a crime to assist the suicide of someone who is suffering from a condition and wants to die.

MacDonald intends to publish a consultation paper by the end of November and will include a wide spectrum of people to discuss the issue.

The detailed proposals of the Bill will be determined by the responses to her consultation paper.

MacDonald, who lives with Parkinson's disease said:

"The politicians have run a mile from this, but they cannot continue to run. I'm not telling them what they have to believe, we all have our own values and beliefs, but they owe it to their constituents to debate the matter."

MacDonald says she has been moved by the case of Dan James (23) a former Rugby player who was paralysed by a training accident and recently died in Switzerland by assisted suicide with his parents accompanying to his death.

MacDonald's announcement specifically followed the decision by the High Court not to guarantee that Debbie Purdy's husband, Omar Puente, would be free from prosecution if he would assist her suicide in Switzerland at the Dignitas Clinic.

The Scottish people need to be aware of how legalizing assisted suicide specifically threatens the lives of people with disabilities and the other vulnerable people in Scotland.

Legalizing assisted suicide creates an inequality in the healthcare system because it allows some people to receive death as the treatment for their condition and others to receive good physical, psychological and social care for the same condition.

It also introduces subtle and overt pressures on people who are living in the most vulnerable time of their lives. Social and economic pressures will often coerce people to "choose" death because they feel they have no other "choice" or to fulfill the wishes of their loved ones or caregivers of the "burden" of care.

Link to the article from the Edinborough Evening News:
http://news.scotsman.com:80/politics/Margo-MacDonald-bids-to-change.4643890.jp

Diane Purdy loses assisted suicide case in the UK

Debbie Purdy, who lives with MS, asked the court for clarity concerning the law on assisted suicide in the UK.

Purdy, who has stated that she intends to travel to Switzerland to die by assisted suicide at the Dignitas clinic, is concerned that her husband, Omar Purnte, may be charged with assisting her suicide by participating in her death in Switzerland.

Purdy was granted a judicial review on the grounds that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had acted illegally by not providing guidance on how decisions on prosecutions are reached.

David Pannick QC - the lawyer for Purdy - said that guidelines already exist for crimes of domestic violence, bad driving and football-related offences.

Pannick argued that Purdy and Puente were entitled to the guidance to enable them to "foresee" if Puente was likely to be prosecuted if he assisted the suicide of his wife.

The two high court justices ruled that the rights of Purdy and her husband have not been infringed and existing guidelines are adequate.

Lord Justice Scott Baker stated:

We cannot leave this case without expressing great sympathy for Ms Purdy, her husband and others in a similar position who wish to know in advance whether they will face prosecution for doing what many would regard as something that the law should permit, namely to help a loved one go abroad to end their suffering when they are unable to do it on their own.

This would involve a change in the law.

The offence of assisted suicide is very widely drawn to cover all manner of different circumstances - only Parliament can change it.

The judge also said that their were reasons why the DPP had produced specific guidelines for other types of crime. The Judge stated:

They concerned "a particular prevalent social problem," were "more easily identifiable," and in those cases "it was clearly imperative that the public should understand the specific criteria that the DPP and crown prosecutors would employ in deciding whether to prosecute them."

The Care Not Killing Alliance in the UK, that is led by Dr. Peter Saunders, responded to the Purdy case by stating:

Assisting in another's suicide is a criminal offence which carries a sentence of up to 14 years imprisonment. The law is very clear on this matter and should not be changed. Changing it to allow assisted suicide would place vulnerable people – the sick, elderly, depressed and disabled – under pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death. Vulnerable people often feel that they constitute a financial or emotional burden to others and the so-called 'right to die' can so easily become the duty to die. Once a person has been 'helped to die' it is often very difficult to know whether there has been subtle coercion involved from someone who has an interest in a person's death.

Requests like this are thankfully extremely rare and hard cases make bad law. We must not legislate for exceptions and the House of Lords for this reason in 2006 quite rightly rejected Lord Joffe's assisted dying bill. There are over 70,000 people in Britain with multiple sclerosis at present and only a very small number ever request assisted suicide. These requests are virtually never persistent if patients' physical, emotional and spiritual needs are properly addressed. Our key priority must therefore be to make the very best palliative care more widely accessible and to get rid of the postcode lottery of care that currently exists in Britain.

We are concerned about Mrs Purdy's expressed fear of choking to death or experiencing excruciating pain because with good palliative care these fears are quite groundless. The public is being misled over this. There have been great advances in the management of multiple sclerosis which have benefited patients and now mean that many with the disease live an almost normal lifespan. Mrs Purdy has had MS for 13 years already and may have many more years still to live. It is also not at all clear, given the type of illness she has, that she would ever need assistance to end her life, should she be determined to do so. This case has to be seen therefore in the wider context of an ongoing campaign by Dignity in Dying, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, to change the law.

The key issue here remains whether the law should be changed for the very small number of people who press for assisted suicide. Our view is that in order to protect others from exploitation it should not be.

Link to the response from the Care Not Killing Coalition concerning the Debbie Purdy case:
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/10/debbie-purdy-case.html

Link to the Care Not Killing Alliance website:
http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/

Purdy has been given permission to appeal the decision. She says she has been left in "a confused mess".

Purdy stated:

I will continue to campaign so that I and others do not have to worry about whether the people we love will face prosecution after we are gone.

The Purdy case is sure to continue.

People with disabilities should be concerned that Purdy may appear to be representing their interests. It is clear that the leadership of the disability rights movement opposes euthanasia and assisted suicide because they are the targeted in society by negative attitudes and social pressures.

People with disabilities really want society to provide them with opportunities to live with dignity. They are not demanding a removal of protections in the law and create an inequality whereby they are subtly and socially pressured to die.

Bryan Ramsey charged with assisted suicide

Bryan Bernard Ramsey was charged with assisted suicide in Union Parish - Framerville La.

Bob Buckley, the Union Parish Sheriff booked Ramsey for helping his 20-year-old housemate kill himself.

Buckley is accused of allegedly putting his hand on the gun but failing to take it from the suicide victim - Tijwan Hendricks.

Ramsey and a female friend were also charged with possessing marijuana and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute it.

Response from the Care Not Killing Alliance to the Debbie Purdy Case

October 29, 2008

Care Not Killing welcomes court decision on Debbie Purdy

The Care Not Killing Alliance has welcomed today's High Court decision not to require the Director of Public Prosecutions to provide information about how decisions to prosecute for assisted suicide are made.

Debbie Purdy, who has multiple sclerosis, had sought a guarantee from the High Court that her husband would not be prosecuted should he accompany her to the Dignitas suicide 'clinic' in Zurich, Switzerland.

Care Not Killing had previously welcomed a full airing of the arguments, but had warned that any loosening of the law to make assisted suicide easier would put vulnerable people at risk and make them susceptible to exploitation and abuse - a view upheld by the House of Lords vote on the Joffe Bill in 2006.

Speaking in reaction to the news of the judgment, Care Not Killing director Dr Saunders said:

We welcome this decision. The current law is very clear and does not require the sort of clarification that has been sought in this case. There has been a huge amount of media interest in this case but the High Court Judges, in giving permission for Debbie Purdy to proceed with the hearing, had made it very clear that they were not giving her any grounds for optimism that her arguments would succeed. We are not surprised that the court found that, in order to protect vulnerable people from exploitation, the current law should be upheld.

Assisting in another's suicide is a criminal offence which carries a sentence of up to 14 years imprisonment. The law is very clear on this matter and should not be changed. Changing it to allow assisted suicide would place vulnerable people – the sick, elderly, depressed and disabled – under pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death. Vulnerable people often feel that they constitute a financial or emotional burden to others and the so-called 'right to die' can so easily become the duty to die. Once a person has been 'helped to die' it is often very difficult to know whether there has been subtle coercion involved from someone who has an interest in a person's death.

Requests like this are thankfully extremely rare and hard cases make bad law. We must not legislate for exceptions and the House of Lords for this reason in 2006 quite rightly rejected Lord Joffe's assisted dying bill. There are over 70,000 people in Britain with multiple sclerosis at present and only a very small number ever request assisted suicide. These requests are virtually never persistent if patients' physical, emotional and spiritual needs are properly addressed. Our key priority must therefore be to make the very best palliative care more widely accessible and to get rid of the postcode lottery of care that currently exists in Britain.

We are concerned about Mrs Purdy's expressed fear of choking to death or experiencing excruciating pain because with good palliative care these fears are quite groundless. The public is being misled over this. There have been great advances in the management of multiple sclerosis which have benefited patients and now mean that many with the disease live an almost normal lifespan. Mrs Purdy has had MS for 13 years already and may have many more years still to live. It is also not at all clear, given the type of illness she has, that she would ever need assistance to end her life, should she be determined to do so. This case has to be seen therefore in the wider context of an ongoing campaign by Dignity in Dying, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, to change the law.

The key issue here remains whether the law should be changed for the very small number of people who press for assisted suicide. Our view is that in order to protect others from exploitation it should not be.

Read more: our previous press statement on Debbie Purdy, our media profile and further details about the case.

Notes for Editors
Care Not Killing is a UK-based alliance bringing together around 50 organisations - human rights and disability rights organisations, health care and palliative care groups, faith-based organisations groups - and thousands of concerned individuals.

We have three key aims:

*to promote more and better palliative care;
*to ensure that existing laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are not weakened or repealed during the lifetime of the current Parliament;
*to inform public opinion further against any weakening of the law.

We seek to attract the broadest support among health care professionals, allied health services and others opposed to euthanasia by campaigning on the basis of powerful arguments underpinned by the latest, well-researched and credible evidence.

Key groups signed up to Care Not Killing include: The Association for Palliative Medicine, the British Council of Disabled People, RADAR, the Christian Medical Fellowship, the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales, the Church of England and the Medical Ethics Alliance.

Coalition Against Assisted Suicide features Barbara Wagner in TV ad

Message from the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide in Washington State:

We urgently need help from across the nation to defeat the assisted suicide initiative here in Washington state. We need to raise money to pay for the final week of media time. Will you match the funds that are pouring into our state from those that support assisted suicide?
Link to the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide donation request form:
https://ssl22.pair.com/stshore/contribute_suicide.html

Click on this link to see the latest Coalition Against Assisted Suicide ad featuring Oregon's Barbara Wagner. It's VERY effective!

Link to the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide website:
http://www.noassistedsuicide.com/

Link to Wesley Smith's blog comment on Barbara Wagner Ad:
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/10/barbara-wagner-urges-washingtonians-to.html

Daniel James - Dying of hopelessness

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Leonard Stern, the Ottawa Citizen's editorial pages editor has written a thought provoking article on the connection of depression to the request for euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Stern begins his article by referring to the fact that the State of Oregon legalized assisted suicide several years ago.

He then states:

For many people, the merits of assisted suicide are self-evident. Who doesn't believe in personal autonomy and the end of suffering? The case for assisted suicide seems all the stronger because those who oppose it tend to invoke religious arguments. Church teachings about the sanctity of life don't resonate very well in public policy debates.

There is, however, a non-religious case to be made against assisted suicide, and it gets stronger the closer one looks at the Oregon experiment, as a team of Oregon psychiatrists recently did. Beginning in 2006, the psychiatrists started interviewing patients who wanted to make use of the assisted suicide legislation. They discovered that one in four patients had undiagnosed clinical depression.

Stern then explains how assisted suicide creates an inequality for people with disabilities. He states:

In most places, people who express a desire to die are evaluated for depression, and receive treatment for it. In places where assisted suicide is practised, such patients might instead receive a fatal dose of barbiturates. The researchers discovered that in 2007, not one "of the people who died by lethal ingestion in Oregon had been evaluated by a psychiatrist or a psychologist."

This secular case against assisted suicide is that assisted suicide discriminates against the sick and disabled. If an able-bodied woman tells her family that she's suicidal, they will surely intervene with psychiatric help. But if a wheelchair-bound woman with Lou Gehrig's disease tells her family the same thing, they might assume, based on social prejudices about disabilities, that the request was a sensible one.

Stern then introduces the case of Daniel James:

Medical ethicists are currently agonizing over the case of Daniel James, a British man who last month killed himself at a Swiss clinic that offers assisted suicide. The case is unsettling for two reasons. First, Mr. James was not suffering a terminal disease. Second, he was 23. The popular image of people who avail themselves of assisted suicide is of very ill senior citizens at the end of life. That was not Mr. James.

Daniel James was a gregarious, burly athlete who last year suffered a terrible injury during a rugby game and was paralyzed from the chest down. Although he could breathe without a ventilator, he couldn't move his limbs. After the accident he tried to kill himself several times but, owing to his disability, was unable to do so. Finally, his parents took him to the clinic in Switzerland. They were with him in the room when the overdose was administered.

By all accounts, Daniel's parents are decent people who were motivated by love. In a statement, his mother talked about how her son had finally been freed from the "prison" he felt his body had become. "What right does any human being have to tell any other that they have to live such a life, filled with terror, discomfort and indignity?" she wrote.

This is heartwrenching. And yet we have to wonder: Daniel said he wanted to die, this is true, but was he instead crying for help, as is the case with so many people -- able-bodied or not -- whose anguish is so great that life seems pointless?

With his injury, Daniel suffered an unspeakable loss -- the loss of the man he once was, and the loss of the man he had planned to be. Because it happened only a year ago, Daniel would still have been in the most intense throes of shock, fear and disorientation that accompany catastrophic misfortune.

Stern then questions whether James was actually depressed:

I'm no expert on the psychology of bereavement, but I suspect that most anyone who suffers a loss of this enormity -- be it the loss of physical independence, the loss of a child, indeed the loss of your future as you envisioned it -- would in the aftermath question the value of living. But experience shows that with time and support, people -- at least some people -- find a way to endure and rebuild.

In her public statement, Daniel's mother acknowledged that "not everyone in Dan's situation would find it as unbearable as Dan." Why is it that Daniel found his situation hopeless and another person with a similar disability might not? One reason might be that Daniel was suffering from profound depression, as would be expected so soon after the accident.

There is a cultural assumption that severe disability is worse than death, and so to Daniel's parents it was completely normal that their 23-year-old son wanted to die. Perhaps they were right. Maybe for Daniel, disability really would have been worse than death. But he should have been given a chance to discover otherwise.

Link to the Ottawa Citizen article:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=98cd7c37-2daf-462a-9698-01a775b4a10b

Link to my blog comment on the Ganzini study on depression and assisted suicide in Oregon:
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/10/depression-and-physician-assisted.html

Spokane VA hospital preventing suicides

What a confusing world we live in.

Information in the Seattle PI explains that the Spokane Veterans Affairs Medical Centre has appointed a suicide prevention coordinator to oversee mandatory suicide prevention training for every employee at the hospital.

There have been six suicide deaths this year alone in that hospital.

I fully endorse the need for a suicide prevention coordinator in hospitals and long-term care facilities to properly care for people who are experiencing depression, mental illness or psychological problems.

But isn't there going to be a problem if Washington State voters decide to support the I-1000 assisted suicide Initiative?

Will the staff of this hospital be forced to abandon a patient who has received a legal lethal dose to their autonomy, even though that person has become depressed and mentally incompetent?

Will legalizing assisted suicide in Washington State not create an inequality among the patients in hospitals, whereby one patient is given the green light to go ahead and ingest a death cocktail while the next patient is discouraged to commit suicide, through the provision of counseling and anti-depressant medications?

If you believe that my concerns are far-fetched then go to the study by Hamilton and Hamilton entitled: Competing Paradigms of Response to Assisted Suicide Requests in Oregon that was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in June 2005.

In reference to a Mr. A. who was being discharged after being diagnosed with depression and suicidal ideation, Hamilton and Hamilton report:

"The day after discharge, the same psychiatrist who said Mr. A kept the assisted suicide drugs "safely at home" wrote a letter supporting guardianship by saying he "is susceptible to periods of confusion and impaired judgement." He concluded that Mr. A was unable to handle his own affairs and that his cognitive impairments were unlikely to improve. As court records later revealed, his primary care doctor had written a similar letter in which he stated: "I do support guardianship... as I think both his disease process and medications needed to control his level of pain are impairing his judgement and ability to care for himself.

A judge declared Mr. A incompetent to make his own medical decisions and assigned him a temporary guardian. Nevertheless, the assisted suicide drugs remained in his home."

Vote NO to the Washington State I-1000 assisted suicide initiative.

Link to the article in the Seattle PI
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com:80/local/6420ap_wa_va_suicides.html

Homicide-Suicide Statistics shows concerns over mental health awareness and male violence towards women

A recent article published in the Columbus Dispatch concerning statistics and issues related to homicide-suicide confirm the results of a study by Malphurs and Cohen - "A Statewide Case-Control Study of Spousal Homicide-Suicide in Older Persons," that was published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry (March 2005).

The Malphurs & Cohen study found that 25% of homicide-suicide perpetrators had a history of domestic violence. In the study, all of the perpetrators were men and 40% were care givers for their wives. Furthermore, their study points out that 65% of homicide-suicide perpetrators and 80% of suicides where a man committed suicide alone were men who were depressed before their deaths. All the perpetrators in this study were men who were often described as dominating, controlling individuals. Their research points out that "depression" is prominent in persons of all ages who commit suicide. Their research also points out that most often the perpetrator is the husband and the victim is the wife.

The article in the Columbus Dispatch points to the recent research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta that released a report about violent deaths based on statistics from 16 states.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported:

In the 200 studied cases, a gun was used nearly 90 percent of the time and men almost always were both the suspects and the suicide decedents. About 15 percent of the suspects had a diagnosed mental-health problem; 10 percent of the suspects were receiving treatment.

The highest percentages of both the homicide and suicide victims were between 35 and 44 years old.

Concerns about Homicide-Suicide relate to the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide based on the false conclusions by some media reporters who state that homicide-suicide deaths are based on a "compassionate" motivation.

When reading the research, one must conclude that the concept of the "compassionate homicide" death is actually a rare occurance, if ever, the reason for the violent acts.

Society needs to recognize that nearly every time these cases are related to mental health concerns or the controlling/abusive actions of the perpetrator spouse towards the other spouse.

Link to the article in the Columbus Dispatch:
http://www.columbusdispatch.com:80/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/23/BADSTATS.ART_ART_10-23-08_A1_KGBM6KI.html?sid=101

Beware of Mexico drug risks and rip offs

Under the title "Beware of Mexico drug risks and rip offs" it appears that Derek Humphry is warning his fellow euthanasia lobby and activists of the pit-falls and problems with going to Mexico to obtain lethal drugs.

Humphry states:

Now some people who are making the same hunting expedition at veterinary stores are reporting that they failed entirely. Upset and angry, they are embarrassed to give details. "We couldn't find any," they say and slam down the phone.

Unpleasant stories have also emerged of the sales experiences. A few people have taken a taxi in border towns asking the driver to take them to a vet. store. Some stores have window signs saying "Australians served."

While the traveler makes the substance purchase inside, the taxi driver calls friends at the local police, who then wait outside the store. As the customer emerges, the police waiting on the sidewalk accuse him or her of acting illegally(probably untrue) thus they will face arrest unless a bribe is paid.

In fact, he is not discouraging people from going to Mexico but to continue their efforts and to be aware that problems may exist in obtaining lethal drugs.

It should concern everyone that he acknowledges that many of the people who are seeking lethal drugs are mentally ill or unstable but that he doesn't raise concerns about the irresponsible nature of promoting suicide tourism in Mexico.

A few people have travelled from as far as Australia and New Zealand to get the substance for their end of life. And gone home to broadcast the news. For many it's an 'insurance' or escape route much to be desired. Many people with poor mental health are also joining the rush for this elixir of death.

Further, instead of discouraging people with mental illness or at least suggesting that the practise of mentally ill people obtaining lethal substances from Mexico might be viewed negatively by the common citizen, Humphry states:

If a person is still determined to acquire this prized death elixir because of life-threatening illness, they are best to travel to an inland Mexican city to search. Whereas this was highly likely in the past to succeed, there is now no guarantee. Caveat emptor.

Once again, the euthanasia lobby is not about self-deliverance for mentally competent, terminally ill adults, but rather to obtain a universal right to die for all people at the time of their choosing. They are simply not concerned about the duty to die that is imposed upon vulnerable people and they are not concerned about people who are mentally incompetent or depressed following their advice or dying in assisted suicide clinics in Switzerland.

Dying in Dignity leader - Edward Turner questions the assisted suicide death of former Rugby Star - Daniel James

Once again it appears that leaders of the euthanasia lobby group - Dying in Dignity - in the UK have questionned the more radical actions of the world-wide euthanasia lobby.

Last week Philip Nitschke, Australia's Dr. Death, had his appearance at a Irish University cancelled after Dying in Dignity leaders branded his advice as irresponsible and illegal. Nitschke is known for his "peaceful pill" handbook and his suicide promoting and counseling service on the internet.

Today Edward Turner, a trustee of the lobby group Dying in Dignity in the UK, questionned the actions of those who supported Daniel James who travelled to Switzerland to die by assisted suicide at the Swiss Dignitas Assisted Suicide clinic.

Turner stated that while he would like to see a change in UK law to allow 'assisted dying' for terminally ill patients, there was a 'distinction' between those cases and that of Daniel James who whilst paralysed, probably had 'several decades' of life ahead of him.

Turner had accompanied his terminally ill mother to the Swiss Dignitas Clinic. His mother had progressive supranuclear palsy.

Turner was quoted as saying:

"The vast majority of the population wants assisted dying for the terminally ill to be legalised ... but Dan wasn't terminally ill.
Although I advocate assisted dying, I'm basically against assisted suicide."

On the other hand, Baroness Warnock supports the assisted suicide death of Daniel James. She said:

"we had a 'moral obligation to other people to take seriously reached decisions with regard to their own lives equally seriously."

Link to the article on UK's Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1078877/Suicide-rugby-player-decades-live-says-euthanasia-campaigner-mother-died-Swiss-suicide-clinic.html

My thoughts on the case of Daniel James (23) lead me to think about a Canadian hero, Steven Fletcher the member of parliament for Charleswood - St. James - Assiniboia in Winnipeg Manitoba and the current parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health.


I do not know what Fletcher would say about James's death, but I do know that Fletcher became a complete quadriplegic in 1996, after hitting a moose with his vehicle while travelling to a geological engineering job in northern Manitoba. The accident left him completely paralysed below the neck, and he now requires 24 hour a day attendant care. He was unable to speak for several months, and only regained this ability after a long process of recovery.

A comment in a blog about Daniel James said:
"So Mr James "had decades of life ahead of him" Until you have walked a mile in his shoes how can you know what it feels like to live his life. His parents may suffer a great loss but at least they know they respected his wishes.

Steven Fletcher has lived through similar experiences that Daniel James would have been experiences. He handled the adversity by rising up to become a source of inspiration for people with disabilies.

I also think about my friend Alison Davis, the leader of the group No Less Human in the UK.

Alison was in a similar situation as Daniel James. She wanted to die and attempted to commit suicide. If she had "supportive parents" as James supposedly has, Alison would be dead today. Instead Alison is an active leader of a disability rights group that supports the equality and dignity of people with disabilities and rejects the concept that equality and dignity includes assisted suicide.

James may have also become a great inspiration for others if he had not been abandoned to his supposed wishes.

For more information about Steven Fletcher go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Fletcher