Sharp growth in Dutch euthanasia deaths

The 2009 Netherlands euthanasia statistics were reported today in the Dutch media. The number of euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands has significantly increased on a yearly basis for several years. The most recent report stated that there were 2636 reported euthanasia deaths, a 13% increase over the 2008 statistics and a 45% increase since 2003. Link to the article:(http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/06/sharp_growth_in_euthanasia_dea.php).

It should be noted that the media reports concerning euthanasia in the Netherlands do not include all catagories of direct and intentional reported deaths. The Netherlands has separate catagories for assisted suicide and deaths without explicit request or consent.

The most recent full-report concerning euthanasia in the Netherlands (2005) stated that there were approximately 400 assisted suicide deaths and 550 deaths without explicit request or consent.

Therefore a more accurate number of reported deaths would be 2636 reported euthanasia deaths + 400 reported assisted suicide deaths + 550 deaths without explicit request or consent.

The number of reported euthanasia deaths has grown significantly. In 2008 there were 2331 reported deaths, in 2007 there were 2120 reported deaths, in 2006 there were 1923 reported deaths, and in 2003 there were 1815 reported deaths. Last year the report indicated that only 80% of euthanasia deaths are actually reported.

The number of deaths by euthanasia continues to escalate. Consider the fact that the 2005 official study of euthanasia in the Netherlands indicated that 7.1% of all deaths were by sedation and dehydration. These are often euthanasia deaths because the death is direct and intentional and the method of death is dehydration. A 2007 report suggested that up to 10% of all deaths in the Netherlands were by sedation and dehydration.

There is a clear ethical difference between intentionally withholding fluids from a person who is nearing death, and dies a natural death and a person who was not otherwise dying and dies by intentional dehydration.

The yearly reports from the media do not include the number of infant eugenic euthanasia deaths, killed via the Groningen Protocol. Link to my article concerning the number of euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands:
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2009/09/incidence-of-euthanasia-and-assisted.html

Meanwhile a study by Anthropologist Anne Marie The suggested that many of the reported cases of euthanasia were not voluntarily requested by the person who died. Anne Marie The interviewed physicians who participated in euthanasia and asked them about specific circumstances. She found that often the decision to go ahead with euthanasia was made by the physician.

Anne Marie The stated to the NRC Handlesblad:

"There is the euthanasia law and then there is the euthanasia reality. To think that we have neatly arranged everything by adopting the euthanasia law is an illusion. Reality is more complicated than that: every patient, every situation and every doctor is different."

Link to the original comment concerning the study by Anne Marie The: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-research-into-dutch-euthanasia-law.html

Now, leaders of the Dutch euthanasia lobby, including Eugene Sutorius, the former leader of the NVVE, are urging parliament to legalize euthanasia for people who are 70 years old and "tired of living." This concept is ridiculous if you consider the reality of elder abuse in the Western culture.

Link to my article about the euthanasia for people who are "Tired of Living" http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/03/dutch-petition-to-permit-killing-by.html

The article in the Dutch news stated that:

The 2008 increase led the health ministry to set up an investigation into the increase. That investigation is due to start this month.

The reality is that euthanasia is out of control in the Netherlands.

At the same time momentum is shifting against the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. In January, the New Hampshire legislature, defeated a bill to legalize assisted suicide by 242 to 113. In April, a bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide was defeated in Canada by 228 to 59. Most recently, the Connecticut court rejected a legal challenge by Compassion & Choices to strike down the State assisted suicide law.

World Elder Abuse and Prevention Day

Compassion & Choices, dubbed “Conflation & Con Jobs” by the disability rights group Not Dead Yet, has issued a blog post in recognition of World Elder Abuse Prevention Day. The post notes “instances” in which family members and others abuse elders, and calls for us to “report [such abusers] to the authorities and encourage punishment.”

Elder abuse, especially financial abuse, is an epidemic. More importantly, Compassion & Choices leaves out that its so-called “death with dignity” laws create new paths for abuse. For example, in Washington State, its law allows an heir who will benefit from a person’s death, to help that person sign up for the lethal dose. See e.g. http://wsba.org/media/publications/barnews/jul-09+deathwithdignity.htm .

In New Hampshire, state representatives recently defeated an Oregon-style death with dignity act, 232 to 113 (nearly 70%). The primary reason: elder abuse. Representative Nancy Elliott states:

In New Hampshire, many legislators who initially thought that they were for the act became uncomfortable when they studied it further. . . . These acts empower heirs and others to pressure and abuse older people to cut short their lives. . . . There is no assisted-suicide bill that you can write to correct this huge problem.

http://mobile.courant.com/inf/infomo;JSESSIONID=BE0E160940E115DEBA1F.925?view=opinion_and_politics_item&feed:a=courant_5min&feed:c=opinionpolitics&feed:i=53984529&nopaging=0
Compassion & Choices's suicide laws are a prescription for abuse. Hence the bulk of its blog post changes the subject to talk about other issues, for example, a patient’s right to refuse treatment. While these other issues can raise legitimate concerns, they do not negate the inconvenient truth about Compassion & Choice’s suicide laws: These acts encourage and promote elder abuse.

Compassion & Choice’s call to report abusers to the authorities and encourage punishment, should begin at home.

Is Philip Nitschke much different than William Melchert-Dinkel?

A comment in the cnet news http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20007556-71.html?tag=mncol;txt#comments got me thinking. Is Philip Nitscke, (Australia's Dr. Death) actually different than William Melchert-Dinkel, the Minnesota nurse who counseled and abetted Nadia Kajouji, a first year Carlton University student, to commit suicide in 2008.

William Melchert Dinkel

Philip Nitschke

Melchert-Dinkel provided information and encouraged Nadia Kajouji to commit suicide. He did this over the internet through online chat. Kajouji was experiencing depression and suicidal thoughts. Melchert-Dinkel trolled the internet to find someone like Kajouji because it appears that he enjoyed encouraging and watching death.

Nitschke promotes his online books and has a website that encourages methods for people to commit suicide. He claims that it is all about freedom, but he is not concerned whether the person who downloads his suicide information is depressed, drugged out, or dying. It appears that he is using the terminally ill to accomplish a philosophical goal, that being the right of anyone at anytime to die. Nitschke was reported to have said in a National Review article concerning the "Peaceful Pill" that it should be available to troubled teens.

How are these areas similar?

Melchert-Dinkel and Nitschke both have a history of taking advantage of suicidal or depressed and vulnerable people.

Both use the internet to protect them from the law or social recrimination.

Both have been directly connected to the deaths of people who were vulnerable and needing help.

At least Melchert-Dinkel was willing to seek help for his crime.

Link to previous articles about Philip Nitschke: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2009/03/suicide-by-mail.html
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/12/australias-dr-death-designs-new-suicide.html

Link to a previous article about Melchert-Dinkel: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/search/label/Nadia%20Kajouji
-----------------------------------------------------

Did students commit 'suicide by laptop'?

Whatever happened, no one may ever truly understand.

The facts, as reported by the Daily Mail, suggest that two students from Scotland checked into a hotel around 80 miles from Edinburgh University, where they were both studying.

When staff were concerned that Robert Miller, 20, and James Robertson, 19, were still in their room after check-out time, they reportedly opened their door and discovered them both dead.

Police reportedly examined a laptop in the students' room and, after police said they were not treating the deaths as suspicious, there are reportedly fears in the students' home communities that the dead men may have been influenced by the ideas of Dr. Philip Nitschke, an Australian campaigner for legal euthanasia.

In 1996, Nitschke created the Deliverance Machine, a device that involved a laptop that was connected to a syringe driver. With just one push of a key, the device, outlawed in 1997, delivers a lethal injection.

Edinburgh University is reportedly working with the authorities to try to find more evidence of what might have led to these students' deaths.

These reports will inevitably lead to renewed debate about the Web offering more information, both "bad" or "good," being made immediately available to those who seek it, or even to those who merely happen to come across it by chance.

Should information about assisted suicide, self-harm and other difficult societal aspects be freely available?

Link to the original article in the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286170/Laptop-suicide-riddle-brilliant-students-dead-hotel-room.html

Living with Dignity

My comment to the Missoula Independent was published.

Link to the article: http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/Profile?oid=1265744

Dear Editor:

I am the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, and Chair for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, International. I disagree with the “Etc.” editorial that assisted suicide laws in Oregon and Washington adequately protect patients. These laws, more accurately, empower doctors, family members and new “best friends” to legally pressure people to take their lives. http://wsba.org/media/publications/barnews…

In Canada, a bill that would have legalized assisted-suicide was overwhelmingly defeated in our Parliament, 228 to 59. When I spoke with lawmakers who voted against the bill, many voiced the opinion that our government’s efforts should be focused on helping our citizens live with dignity, rather than developing strategies to get them out of the way.

Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Box 25033
London ON, Canada, N6C 6A8
1-877-439-3348

Belgium nurses are involved with euthanasia without request - nearly half of the time.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A recent study that was published in the May 17 edition of the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association states that nearly half of the euthanasia deaths in Belgium that directly involve nurses are done without the consent of the patient.

The study: The role of nurses in physician-assisted deaths in Belgium, surveyed 1678 nurses in Belgium concerning life-ending decisions. The nurses who responded were protected from legal prosecution. The response rate was 76% (1265 responses) with 128 nurses reported having cared for a patient who received life-ending drugs without consent.

What is particularly concerning is the role of nurses in the euthanasia deaths of people without request.

The data in the study indicates that the nurses participated in 248 euthanasia deaths in 2007 with 120 of those euthanasia deaths being done without the explicit consent of the patient. Further to that, the data indicated that nurses participated in 12% of all of the euthanasia deaths that were done with the consent of the patient and 45% of the euthanasia deaths that they participated were done without the request of the patient.

The authors of the study wondered why nurses seemed more likely to lethally inject a patient without consent than a physician. The study stated:

we wonder why nurses more often administered the life-ending drugs in cases without an explicit patient request than in cases of euthanasia with an explicit request. Perhaps nurses took a more active role out of concern for frailer patients who could no longer communicate, or for very old patients because physicians are more reluctant to give assistance in dying when dealing with these patients. Further, in cases of euthanasia, communication between the physician and the patient is common.

The study also suggested that many of the euthanasia deaths without explicit request or consent are not being reported which correlates with other recent studies that have proven that there is chronic under-reporting of euthanasia in Belgium which is even worse than the recent Dutch studies that indicate that approximately 20% of all euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands are not reported. The study concluded:

By administering life-ending drugs at the physician’s request in some cases of euthanasia, and even more so in cases without an explicit request from the patient, the nurses in our study operated beyond the legal margins of their profession. Future research should closely monitor and examine the involvement of nurses in these practices nationally and internationally to allow comparisons between countries with and without euthanasia legislation.

Dr Peter Saunders

Dr. Peter Saunders, the campaign director for the Care Not Killing Alliance in the UK told the Daily Mail newspaper that: 

"We should take a warning from this that wherever you draw the line, people will go to it and beyond it."

Wesley Smith, bioethicist and anti-euthanasia writer challenged the media reports that missed the obvious point. Smith pointed out the proper summary of the study:


“This study shows that euthanasia poisons everything it touches. Legal guidelines don’t protect vulnerable patients from abuse once euthanasia is legalized. Moreover, nurses are particularly susceptible to being caught up in acts that are illegal when doctors, who many not wish to take the final life-ending act themselves, order them to carry out the termination. We also note that this study demonstrates that once killing becomes part of the medical armamentarium, it leads directly to patient abuse and medical criminality. This study highlights a reason why legalizing euthanasia is bad ethics and ever worse public policy.”

To legalize euthanasia and/or assisted suicide actually means that the law is giving physicians and in this case nurses (and possibly other medical care givers) the right to directly and intentionally take the lives of their patients. When legalizing euthanasia, the law then changes from protecting the lives of their patients to creating a set of rules whereby it is acceptable to kill their patients. Rules change, rules get interpreted.

Wesley Smith

The reality is that it is not ever safe to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide under any circumstances. The people who die are often vulnerable (dependent on others for their basic care), they are going through a very difficult time of their life, and they are often viewed as expendable by a medical and political establishment that has become focused on cost-containment.

What we need to do is create new and effective ways to care for people and not kill them. We need to create options for families. We need to integrate the care of people with disabilities, chronic or terminal conditions with the wider community. We need to create "safe harbours" for our loved ones.

We need to re-instill the ethic of caring and loving others in our society and reject the concept of killing the vulnerable.

Link to the actual study published in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association: http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/rapidpdf/cmaj.091881v1

Link to the article in Daily Mail (UK): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285423/Half-Belgiums-euthanasia-nurses-admit-killing-consent.html

Link to the article from the Australian - Age.com.au: http://www.theage.com.au/world/half-do-not-agree-to-die-20100610-y0dp.html

The Swiss death clinic, Dignitas, is in the news again.

Mark Mostert

I was looking through my emails and came across this excellent blog comment by Mark Mostert from the Institute for the Study of Disabilities & Bioethics. Here is what he wrote:

Dignitas: Kill Them All

You’ll recall that Dignitas has gained notoriety as a fee-for-service killing venue for those who wish to die via assisted suicide. Dignitas has been most exposed by high-profile visits from UK citizens who travelled to the clinic to die because in the UK assisted suicide is illegal, and allows for the prosecution (at least on paper) of those who help people kill themselves.

However, there’s a very ugly underbelly to all the spin that Dignitas is a haven of care and a celebration of human autonomy.

There have been reports of dingy and dirty surroundings, less than dignified treatment of those who come to be killed both before and after they die, and the nagging fact that this is all offered at a rather exorbitant fee.

It gets worse. Several months ago hundreds of urns with the cremated remains of Dignitas’ victims were discovered dumped in Lake Geneva. This matter is currently under investigation.

Dignitas is again in the news, and I’m not sure why this latest issue so surprises the media, because Dignitas is doing exactly what it has always said it was doing: Helping anyone who wants to to kick the bucket.

The latest flap involves Dignitas’ providing a suicide kit to a 39 year-old Spanish man with severe psychological problems. From London's Daily Mail:

Swiss suicide clinic Dignitas is under investigation over claims that it ignored a patient's distressed mental condition to give him drugs to end his own life. . . . But now details have emerged of a patient who was allegedly given a DIY suicide kit prescribed by a Zurich gynaeologist despite suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. . . . But a Dignitas report on the 39-year-old Spanish man's mental state was a few lines that barely covered half a page of A4 paper, say local media reports on the death.

Oops.

Or maybe not.

Here’s why: All the chatter about “transparency,” policies to “protect,” rigid controls to ensure that no “mistakes” are made is all smoke and mirrors on the way to the only goal the pro-death crowd have always wanted: Assisted suicide and euthanasia on demand and available for anyone, anywhere, at any time.

Don’t take my word for it, take those of Dignitas’ owner Minelli:

'Every person in Europe has the right to choose to die, even if they are not terminally ill.'

Chilling.

Link to Mark Mostert's blog: http://disabilitymatters.blogspot.com

Misleading claims by Final Exit Network

Jerry Dincin wrote an article making a few off the mark claims about the Final Exit Network. This is the response by Stephen Drake, the researcher from Not Dead Yet, to the article

--------

Stephen Drake

As the research analyst for a national disability rights group that opposes legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide, I am all too familiar with the Final Exit Network (FEN). I think it's important that readers – and the editors – know that Jerry Dincin misled readers on several points in his essay published on June 7 ("Death with dignity").

Mr. Dincin claims that authorities are "persecuting" FEN members in Georgia and Arizona. That is a gross distortion. The authorities in Georgia and Arizona initiated investigations after complaints by concerned relatives that the apparent suicides of their loved ones were aided and encouraged by FEN members. That's not "persecution" — it's "doing your job."

In Georgia, the undercover agent who investigated FEN posing as a cancer patient asserted he was never asked for his medical records. Further, he reported that he was told that part of the "help" he would be given involved a FEN "exit guide" holding his hands down to prevent him from removing the helium-filled plastic bag meant to cause his death.

In Arizona, the person "helped" was a woman with no serious physical problems — but who had a history of emotional difficulties. Mr. Dincin didn't mention that two of the defendants in that case have entered into a plea bargain and agreed to testify against other FEN members — including Larry Egbert.

The man "helped" in Georgia was a man successfully treated for cancer, and who was depressed over the surgical alterations to his physical appearance. Autopsy found him to be cancer-free.

Search for op-eds by FEN members and you'll find the claims that members make about their goals, methods and "clients" to vary widely — apparently, they can't keep their stories straight. The journalists at the paper might want to actually do some research and reporting on this case before giving the group a bully pulpit here.

Stephen Drake, Rochester, N.Y.

The writer is a research analyst for Not Dead Yet.

Link to the article in the Baltimore Sun: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-final-exit-network-letter-20100608,0,1035733.story

EPC Strategy Meeting - June 19, 2010

We want your input.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is hosting its strategy meeting and AGM on Saturday, June 19, at the Best Western - Toronto Airport Hotel, 5825 Dixie Rd Mississauga.

Work with us to strengthen our strategy to Turn the Tide on the issues of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Canada. We are convinced that we can create a “Made in Canada” solution to these issues.

The strategy meeting will include presentations and open discussion forums. We will examine the direction of the parliamentary committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care and learn about Elder Abuse.

The meeting will begin at 10 am and end at 4 pm. You may want to join us for dinner afterwards.

We will establish where we are at with presentations by Alex Schadenberg, Margaret Dore, Rhonda Wiebe & possibly MP’s.

We will then have a facilitated strategy meeting concerning our future directions and how they can be achieved.

The cost is $50 per person which covers the cost of the food and the meeting room.

If you need to stay overnight, call the Best Western at: 905-670-8180 to book your room for $85.00 per night and say it is for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition meeting.

For more information or to register for the Strategy Meeting contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: 1-877-439-3348 or euthanasiaprevention@on.aibn.com

New Hampshire, Canada and now, Connecticut

Assisted suicide/euthanasia backers are hitting a wall in 2010.

In January, the New Hampshire legislature defeated an Oregon-style “death with dignity” act by nearly 70% (242 to 113).

In April, the Canadian legislature soundly defeated Bill C-384, which would have legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia in Canada by nearly 80% (228 to 59).

In June, a lawsuit was dismissed in Connecticut, which sought to legalize assisted suicide.

The Connecticut lawsuit, Blick v. Connecticut, was in some ways, a word game. 

The complaint alleged that a Connecticut criminal statute, which prohibited intentionally causing or aiding a suicide, did not prohibit “aid in dying.” The argument was that aid in dying, a euphemism for assisted-suicide and euthanasia, was not “suicide” within the meaning of the statute. 

The trial court rejected this claim. (Memorandum of Decision on Motion to Dismiss, p.24) The court also raised “significant medical, legal, and ethical concerns” about assisted suicide. (Id., p.16) These concerns included whether legal assisted suicide is a threat to the elderly due to “undue influence, pressure or coercion,” and whether it will “open . . . the door to the possibility of involuntary euthanasia, as has occurred in the Netherlands.” (Id., p.17)

The court also noted:

“‘In almost every State–indeed, in almost every western democracy-it is a crime to assist a suicide.’” (Id., p.13)

The court ultimately held that determining whether assisted suicide should be legal is a matter for the legislature. (Id., p.26) It is not yet known whether suicide proponents will appeal.

The Crime of Assisted Suicide

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Barbara Coombs Lee, president of the assisted suicide lobbying group, Compassion & Choices, has posted a response to the arraignment of nurse William Melchert-Dinkel (47) on two counts of aiding suicide. According to the criminal complaint, Melchert-Dinkel trolled the internet, posing as a young woman, encouraging dozens of people to kill themselves. The specific charges arise out of the deaths of 23 year old Mark Drybrough and 18 year old, Nadia Kajouji.

Coombs Lee’s post on Compassion & Choices’ blog is titled: "The Real Crime of Assisted Suicide." She states that reporters have been calling Compassion & Choices for comment, "perhaps with the expectation that we would not condemn the alleged behavior." Coombs Lee, however, and rightfully so, condemns the alleged conduct of Melchert-Dinkel.

Coombs Lee’s post is, nonetheless, not up front about the role of her organization. First and foremost, Compassion & Choices also encourages suicide, which she euphemistically terms "aid in dying." Coombs Lee further states that "aid in dying" is something "different" than suicide, in part, because she claims it is limited to people who are dying anyway. She states: "Aid in Dying . . . changes only the timing of the imminent death in a minor way." She also claims that "aid in dying" promotes patient "self-determination." This is not only wordplay, but malarky.

Last week a Connecticut court further agreed that "aid in dying" is in fact assisted suicide by another name. In the Blick case, Compassion & Choices argued that the Connecticut law that prohibits assisted suicide does not prohibit "aid in dying" because "aid in dying" is not suicide. The court concluded that the definition proposed by Compassion & Choices is identical to the definition of assisted suicide and therefore it is prohibited by the assisted suicide law. 

In other words, "aid in dying" is simply another name for assisted suicide.

Compassion & Choices has recently, at least twice, proposed expanded "aid in dying" laws, which would apply to non-dying people. In New Hampshire, where an assisted suicide law was defeated in January, her organization proposed a definition of "terminal condition" so broad that it would have included otherwise healthy people with disabilities. See here: http://notdeadyetnewscommentary.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-hampshire-poised-to-redefine.html.

Similarly, in Montana, Compassion & Choices’ definition of a "terminally ill adult patient" would have applied to an 18 year old who is insulin dependant or a young adult with stable HIV/AIDS. http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/ConnMemo02.pdf

Compassion & Choices’ broad definitions of "terminal" are also significant in terms of healthcare delivery. This is because once patients are labelled "terminal," an easy justification can be made that their treatment or coverage be denied in favour of someone "more deserving." In Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, this has already happened, with the most well-known case involving Barbara Wagner. Wagner, who had cancer, wanted the chance to live offered by the drug, Tarceva. The Oregon Health Plan, however, denied coverage and offered to pay for "aid in dying." Wagner did not see this "option" as a celebration of her "self-determination." She said: "I'm not ready, I'm not ready to die."

In November 2008, Coombs Lee commented on the Wagner case. In an Orgonian editorial, she defended the Oregon Health Plan, argued against Wagner’s choice to try Tarceva and argued for a public policy change to discourage patients from seeking cures. Coombs Lee stated:

"The burning health policy question is whether we inadvertently encourage patients to act against their own self interest, chase an unattainable dream of cure, and foreclose the path of acceptance that curative care has been exhausted and the time for comfort care is at hand. Such encouragement serves neither patients, families, nor the public."

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/11/sensationalizing

So much for patient "self-determination." Moreover, if Compassion & Choices’s broad definitions of "terminal" would be adopted, would the next "Barbara Wagners" include 18 year olds dependant on insulin or young adults with HIV/AIDS? This is a fair question.

Part of the shock expressed with Melchert-Dinkel’s conduct concerns his alleged use of deception to hide his true identity and agenda. Compassion & Choices, deceptively named as if it were a promoter of individual choice, has a similar attribute.

Legal assisted suicide, whatever its name, is not about patient self-determination. It is about enabling physicians or other people and institutions such as health plans to pressure others to an early death or even to cause that death. This is the "crime" of assisted suicide.

Persuaded to live with dignity

Jeanette Hall tells the real story of being a person in Oregon who qualified for assisted suicide but was persuaded by her physician to accept extensive treatment and who not only survived but is now thoroughly enjoying life and happy to be alive.

Society needs to ensure that all of its citizens can Live with Dignity rather than being directly and intentionally encouraged, counselled and aided to death.

The Montreal Gazette June 2, 2010

Re: "Euthanasia hearings to hit the road" (Gazette, May 26).

I'm a retired bookkeeper, who lives in Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal. Our law was enacted via a ballot initiative, for which I voted.

In 2000, I was diagnosed with colon cancer and told that I had six months to a year to live. I knew that our law had passed, but I didn't know exactly how to go about doing it. I asked one of my doctors, but he didn't really answer me.

Instead, he encouraged me not to give up and ultimately I decided to fight. I had both chemotherapy and radiation, and I am truly happy to be alive! That was 10 years ago, and if my doctors had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead. I thank each of them for helping me choose "life with dignity."

Jeanette Hall
King City, Oregon

Link to the comment at: http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/letters/Persuaded+live+with+dignity/3100355/story.html

The Resistance Campaign: People with disabilities launch website opposing assisted suicide

I have just received information from my contacts in the UK concerning a new website that is developed by the disability community to explain why they oppose the legalization of assisted suicide.

Not Dead Yet - UK has been actively resisting the legalization of assisted suicide. This website will better enable them to get their message out to society, a message that has often been ignored by the media.

The website is found at: http://www.theresistancecampaign.org.uk

The fact is that the media would like to place the issue of assisted suicide within the context of the "culture war." This way society doesn't need to consider how the collateral damage related to legalizing assisted suicide will effect individuals and society in general.

I will continue to follow the "resistance campaign" website. As a father of a child with a disability I understand their perspective and congratulate them for continuing to engage in the debate.

Right To Die Is Prescription For Abuse

This is an excellent letter written by Representative Nancy Elliott from New Hampshire that was published 5/28/2010. Nancy was a valient voice who opposed assisted suicide in New Hampshire based on the sad reality of elder abuse and how legalizing assisted suicide would effect vulnerable people. Her article stated:

I am a state representative in New Hampshire, where we recently voted down an Oregon-style "death with dignity" act. The vote was 242 to 133 (nearly 70 percent). I disagree with Barbara Coombs Lee that such legislation brings "choice" to elders [Opinion, May 16, "Elders Deserve Choices, Not Just A Bitter End"].

In New Hampshire, many legislators who initially thought that they were for the act became uncomfortable when they studied it further. Contrary to promoting "choice" for older people, these acts are a prescription for abuse. These acts empower heirs and others to pressure and abuse older people to cut short their lives. This is especially an issue when the older person has money. There is no assisted-suicide bill that you can write to correct this huge problem.

Do not be deceived.

Nancy Elliott, Merrimack, N.H.

We are fortunanate that courageous and truthful leaders, such as Nancy Elliott, are willing to speak up and be counted in the debate.
Link to the letter at: http://mobile.courant.com/inf/infomo?view=opinion_and_politics_item&feed:a=courant_5min&feed:c=opinionpolitics&feed:i=53984529&nopaging=1

Ozzie Osbourne – Latimer’s Mercy

Disability researcher, Dick Sobsey has written a blog comment on the Ozzy Osborne song about the killing of Tracy Latimer.

Please read his blog comment at: http://icad.wordpress.com/2010/05/30/ozzy-osbourne-latimers-mercy/

We the People - Montana Patient Protection Act

Senator Greg Hinkle, Montana State Senator, announced the introduction of the Montana Patient Protection Act, an Act that includes the reversal of the Baxter decision by the Montana Court. Baxter didn't legalize assisted suicide in Montana but created a defense of consent.

Senator Hinkle has been working for many months to refine the Montana Patient Protection Act.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition congratulates Senator Hinkle on his work and we will urge the Montana State Senate to support the Montana Patient Protection Act.

The following is the article that was written by Senator Greg Hinkle and published in The Clark Fork Chronicle:
---------------------------------------------------------

Montana Patient Protection Act

The Clark Fork Chronicle - Sunday, May 30 2010

by Sen. Greg Hinkle

http://www.clarkforkchronicle.com/article.php/20100530155921580

I have introduced the Montana Patient Protection Act which prohibits physician-homicide and physician-assisted suicide ("aid in dying"). The Act is in response to the Supreme Court decision Baxter v. State of Montana. This Act is based on Montana's public policy to prevent elder abuse and to value all citizens.

Baxter holds that a patient's consent to physician-assisted suicde "constitutes a statutory defense to a charge of homicide against the aiding physician." In Baxter the court overlooked elder abuse. The court stated the only person "who might conceivably be prosecuted for criminal behavior is the physician who prescribes a lethal dose of medication." The court overlooked criminal behavior by family members and others who may benefit from a patient's death, for example, due to an inheritance. Although an aiding perpetrator faces a charge of homicide, "aid in dying" is commonly referred to as "assisted suicide". The term "aid in dying" is also used to describe euthanasia.

There are two states that allow physician-assisted suicide, Washington and Oregon. The vast majority of states that have consided such laws have rejected them. In 2010, a bill to legalize physician-assisted suicde was defeated in the New Hampshire House of Representatives in a bi-partisan vote of 242-113. A similar law was recently defeated in the Canadian Parliment by 228-59.

In Montana, there has been "rapid growth" of elder abuse. Nationwide, elder financial abuse is a crime "growing in intensity" with perpetrators often family members, but also strangers and new "best friends". Abuse of the elderly and other vulnerable adults is often subtle and difficult to detect. Victims are often unwilling to report due to embarrassment or a desire to protect family members.

Allowing a victim to consent to physician-assisted suicide creates another path of abuse. For example, a perpetrator could encourage an older person to request a lethal dose and then administer the dose without his consent. The older person's prior request, voluntary or not, would provide the alibi. With the difficulty of detecting and proving homicide, generally, and the difficulties in preventing and detecting abuse specifically, considering the unwillingness of victims to report, it is against public policy to allow a victim to consent to his own homicide.

The Baxter decision applies to "terminally ill" patients. Doctor progonoses of life expectancy can be wrong. I have a close relative, who at age 52 had a serious heart attack and was given a prognosis of no more than eight years to live. That was over thirty years ago and many grandchildren, great grandchildren later he is still enjoying life. Allowing physician-assisted suicide will thus result in some Montanans, with many good years left, cutting their lives short. This situation will be even more evident if the proponents' definition of "terminally ill adult patient" is adopted by the authorities. This defintion is broad enough to include a young person dependent on insulin or a young man with stable HIV/AIDS, who could have "decades to live". Encouraging Montanans to shorten their lives is contrary to Montana public policy, which seeks to "improve and protect the health and well being, and self reliance" of all Montanans.

Allowing physician-assisted suicide will open the door to the "Barbara Wagner" scenario. Wagner was a resident of Oregon with lung cancer. The Oregon Health Plan refused to pay for a drug to possibly prolong her life and offered to pay for "aid in dying" instead. Unable to afford the drug, she was steered to suicide. Wagner stated, "I am not ready, I am not ready to die". Will young persons with diabetes or HIV/AIDS be the next Barbara Wagners? Montana already has one of the highest suicides rates in the nation. It is a state priority to reduce the suicide rate for persons "of all ages". Steering citizens to kill themselves is contrary to this policy.

Montana values all of its citizens, including those who are older or may have chronic conditions or other disabilities. Baxter overlooked elder abuse. It is against public policy to allow consent to homicide; to encourage Montanans to cut their lives short or steer them to suicide. Montanans should reject "aid in dying."

Readers interested in my source materials can view them in my "Report to the Senate for LC0041, The Montana Patient Protection Act". My contact email is ghinklesd7@gmail.com or phone 406-827-4645

5 Reasons Why People Devalue the Elderly

This is a guest column by Kitty Holman, who writes on the topics of Nursing Schools.

All around us in modern Western society is evidence that elderly adults who cannot care for themselves on their own are being abused and neglected. I believe that much of this is a result of a general social disregard for this vulnerable population group. This broad disregard is such that many of them—especially those with disabilities and those living with chronic pain—would rather have their lives ended for them than go on living in a world where they perceive they are not valued. Yes, we can certainly see the evidence. But have we ever stopped to consider why it is that so many in our society think treating the elderly this way is acceptable? Here I will attempt to answer the great "why" question.

1. Us-versus-them mentality. In the early 1980s, a German-born American scholar named Wolf Wolfensberger proposed his relationship theory called Social Role Valorization. The theory suggested that society tends to categorize certain groups of people (them) as fundamentally "different" and of less value than everyone else (us). This theory is not only evident in how many regard the elderly who cannot entirely care for themselves, but it is also evident in the way many people routinely ignore the homeless, do not make eye contact with people with disabilities of all ages, and do not feel entirely at ease with people of a different race. Society has a habit of stacking up reasons why someone is different from them and using those reasons to place a lower value on that person.

2. The tendency to "shoot" our weak and wounded. The theory of evolution suggests that only the strong survive. The danger here is taking the theory to the point where it becomes an ideology—that only the strong should survive. However, evidence of this concept is apparent in a number of social groups. Many religious groups routinely ostracize and shun those among them who are "spiritually weak" and commit more visible "sins," rather than reaching out to pull them back into fellowship. In the business world, instead of working to improve weak performers, many bosses cut their losses, and hire new talent. Some part of human nature sincerely believes they will be considered weak—and fail socially—if they associate themselves with weak people; they believe if they rescue someone from drowning, they too will drown. For the elderly who need our help, this can mean their needs go ignored. After all, only the strong survive.

3. Lack of compassion. Compassion and respect for the elderly don't always come naturally—they are most often learned character traits. These traits must be instilled in us as children or demonstrated to us in some other way in our adult life. Parents do not always teach their children from an early age to treat the elderly with the utmost respect.

4. The idea that one's value is based on what one can contribute to society. The subtle undercurrent here is that the elderly no longer have the ability to "repay" the "debt" of care that is given them. Even if they recover and their pain is adequately managed, they are still knocking on death's door—why waste efforts on someone who will only be around for a short time? A child or younger adult, if he or she is cared for, may yet recover and go on to contribute to society. Therefore, we devalue the elderly.

5. Youth-centric culture. Western culture, especially the U.S., is obsessed with youth, unlike other cultures who respect and even revere older individuals for their wisdom. Society as a whole believes our children are worth fighting valiantly for when they are ill or in pain, but does not generally fight as hard for their elderly, who have already lived their lives and are no longer part of society's warped ideal—young, vibrant, and beautiful.

This guest post is contributed by Kitty Holman, who writes on the topics of Nursing Schools at: http://www.nursingschools.net/blog/. 

Attacks on the Schindler family are unfounded. The real question is what did Michael Schiavo do with all the money?

Standing in solidarity against an evil and unfounded attack.

A recent attack news program by a television station in Florida has created a controversy over the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation. They have accused the Schindler family of lining their pockets with foundation money.

Wesley Smith reported the complaint in his article that was published in the National Review online. Schiavo was reported as saying to the attack news program:

Schiavo’s widower, Michael Schiavo, says the family should be ashamed of what they are doing. He adds if Terri ever knew this was happening she’d be horrified. Michael Schiavo is talking about the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation. While Terri Schiavo’s brother Bobby says the organization is set up to help families in similar situations, Michael Schiavo says he doesn’t believe it. Instead Schiavo says they are using their deceased sister’s name to make money.

Smith destroyed the accusations in his article when he stated:
"And as for profiteering–Bobby Schindler’s salary is $37,500 annually, and all speaking fees he receives go to the foundation. His sister Suzanne, makes less and is 14 months in arrears in receiving her compensation. It is also worth noting, that after receiving complaints, the IRS investigated the foundation and gave it a clean bill of health in 2008."

An article written by Pamela Hennessy that was published in the North County Gazette reveals even more about the false accusations in the attack news program. She stated:

the Foundation provided the reporter with their latest 990 income and expense filing, a letter from the Internal Revenue Service (giving the Foundation notice of compliance and approval for the continuance of their tax-exempt 501(c)3 status) and a letter from their attorney, asking that the report be tabled in light of the Schindlers’ good standing with the authorities.

Care to guess which one of those documents were posted to WTSP’s website? Yes. Just the letter from the attorney. Deeson kept the other, rather pertinent, information from viewers.

Mark Mostert, from the Institute for the Study of Disability and Bioethics stated:

All innuendo and spin. Why would we expect anything else? Even all these years after her death, Bobby, Suzanne, and Mary spend countless hours trying to correct misleading reporting about the circumstances of Terri’s death. This is just one more media attack in a long string of animus posing as “news” and comes just a few weeks after Fox’s The Family Guy made horrible fun of Terri and her disabled condition.

Concerning the attack by Michael Schiavo, the man who used the money that was awarded by the courts to care for Terri for the rest of her natural life, that the Schindlers are not even fulfilling the goals of the Foundation. Smith correctly stated:

Had the reporters wanted to find out the kind of help the foundation offers others, producers could have called me or a myriad of others active in this field, who are quite aware of the selfless giving and effort each surviving member of Terri’s family offers to others. Indeed, I have personal knowledge of case after case in which the Schindlers worked selflessly–and without financial compensation of any kind–to assist family members save their cognitively disabled loved ones from suffering the same dehydration fate as Terri. The Lauren Richardson food and fluids dispute and the Andrea Clarke futile care case are just two that come to mind.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition arranged to have Randy Richardson, the father of Lauren Richardson, speak at the Second-International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide that we had co-hosted near Washington DC. Like Wesley, I can attest to the fact that the Schindler family has been incredibly successful in helping families prevent a similar fate to their loved ones, as had happened to Terri.

The Schindler family have been operating the Foundation on a tight budget. The reports prove that the charitable money they received in 2008 was less than $100,000 and yet they have done an incredible service with that budget.

The real question is: What did Michael Schiavo do with the money that was awarded for the care of Terri for the rest of her life?

Article by Wesley Smith in the National Review online:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/05/01/i-stand-in-solidarity-with-the-schindlers-against-sleazy-media-attack/

Article by Pamela Hennessy in the North County Gazette:
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2010/05/01/all_the_news/

My blog article about dehydration deaths:
http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/02/stop-dehydration-deaths-says-terri.html

The original article attacking the Schindler family:
http://www.13wmaz.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=78447&catid=28

Texas: Murder of Disabled Spouse Yields Probation for Wife

This is a reprint of the blog entry by Stephen Drake from Not Dead Yet. This is a very important blog entry.

Texas has a reputation for doling out pretty harsh treatment when it comes to murder. Apparently - in Austin, anyway - exceptions will be made if the victim is devalued enough.

Last Friday, Katherine "Kim" Yarbrough received ten years of probation in a plea bargain. Yarbrough had admitted to killing her husband, Lloyd Yarbrough. Nevertheless, she was allowed to plead to "injury to a disabled individual."

From the article in the Austin-American Statesman:

Police say Yarbrough admitted killing her husband, Lloyd, 62, by injecting his feeding tube with an assortment of crushed prescription pills. She then swallowed some drugs of her own, police have said. A police officer found the couple in bed May 27 at their home on Meadowview Lane, near Lamar and Research boulevards in North Austin.

Here is what the authorities have to say about the plea deal:

Outside court Friday, prosecutor Amy Meredith said that considering the facts of the case and Yarbrough's clean criminal history, District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg did not think that a prison term was warranted.

Meredith noted that for years when selecting jurors in murder cases, prosecutors had used an example similar to Yarbrough's — when one spouse kills another to end that spouse's suffering — as a type of murder case that might warrant a probation sentence. (emphasis added.)

The problem with that rationale - and its reported in the article, but not as a problem, is that Kim Yarbrough never claimed to have killed her husband to end his suffering:

She blogged about her frustrations with outside caregivers and a lack of a support system.

"I wonder if I will ever change Lloyd's diaper without feeling the pain of what has been lost," she blogged four days before his death.

Two days before his death, she wrote, "Why should I keep living through all this?"

While in the hospital, Yarbrough was interviewed by police. According to an arrest affidavit, she told an officer that she killed her husband "because she was tired of taking care of him." When an officer asked her if Lloyd Yarbrough wanted to die, she said "no," the affidavit said. (emphasis added.)

There is no way to reconcile Kim Yarbrough's statements to the police with the statements of the prosecutor attempting to explain this plea bargain. I guess they figure in Austin that if you're a "caregiver" you also get to end that role, in whatever way you see fit. I guess they figure that killing someone as disabled as Lloyd Yarbrough isn't the same as a "real" murder.

If you think I'm being too harsh, several of the comments to this story have people praising this woman - evidently they don't know how to read or they don't think what Lloyd Yarbrough wanted mattered. --Stephen Drake

Ontario closes its eyes to elder abuse

An article in the Toronto Star the other day really outlined the lack of concern for the problem of Elder Abuse in Ontario.

The article by Carol Goar on April 26, 2010 concerning the defeat of the elder abuse bill by John O'Toole stated:

Conservative backbencher John O'Toole was puzzled when four Liberal cabinet ministers showed up to vote on his private member's bill.

The provincial government didn't normally devote such high-level attention to opposition proposals. And this one wasn't even controversial. A previous version of the same bill had sailed through second reading (approval in principle) two years ago, but died on the order paper when Premier Dalton McGuinty prorogued the session.

All O'Toole was asking the government to do was instruct the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (the agency responsible for adults who are mentally incapable of managing their affairs) to set up a public registry of individuals with power of attorney for those who have relinquished control of their finances.

Such a database would allow concerned relatives, friends, bankers, accountants and nursing home officials to find out who is in charge of an elderly person's property. It would also facilitate police investigations into complaints by vulnerable seniors and their caregivers.

“It's a non-partisan issue,” O'Toole insisted. As proof, he pointed out that his bill was at odds with his own non-interventionist ideology. “As a Conservative, I want less government, but this is an area where we need more government.”

His hopes withered when Liberal MPP David Zimmer, parliamentary secretary to the attorney general, spoke. The Willowdale politician said he could not support the bill because it violated the wishes of many aging parents. At the behest of their doctor or a financial adviser, they had designated one of their children or a friend or lawyer to act on their behalf, should they become incapacitated. But they wanted this information to be kept private. Their desire should be respected, Zimmer argued.

A few minutes later, Khalil Ramal, a Liberal backbencher from London, chimed in. “I think this bill does not serve seniors well. I'm not going to vote for this bill, not because I don't like the member for Durham — he's a great member — but hey, it doesn't fit with the direction of the legalities.”

After this bewildering statement, O'Toole was invited by the Speaker to respond. Recognizing the futility of a last-ditch appeal, he acknowledged the inevitable. “This is not going to become law. I fully understand this.”

His bill was soundly defeated. Six MPPs (four Tories and two New Democrats) said yes. Twenty three MPPs (all Liberals) said no.

“I was surprised they wouldn't even let it go to a committee,” O'Toole said afterward. “That's what that I was really hoping for.”

He hasn't given up. But he has no idea how to get elder abuse back on the legislative agenda.

What troubles O'Toole most is the lack of awareness of the extent and seriousness of this problem. He was as ignorant as everyone else, he admitted, until a constituent opened his eyes. It simply wasn't a topic of conversation in business or social circles. Looking back on his 30-year management career at General Motors, he couldn't remember anyone ever mentioning it. Nor did it come up during his four years as a municipal councillor or his nine years as a school board trustee.

He's still no expert, O'Toole stresses. But he's dealt with enough cases of frail seniors losing their homes, savings, investments and possessions to know the problem is real and more prevalent than people think. He's also learned a great deal from the Durham police, who have two officers working full-time on elder abuse, and from the strong coalition of volunteers, social service providers and health professionals working to protect vulnerable seniors in his riding.

For their sake, he wishes his bill had passed. For Ontario's sake, he hopes the government wakes up.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/800155--ontario-closes-its-eyes-to-elder-abuse

WE WON - Bill C-384 was defeated, 228 to 59

Bill C-384, the private members bill that would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada was strongly defeated by a vote of 228 to 59.

We would like to thank every member of parliament who voted against Bill C-384. We would also like to thank all of our supporters who made this victory possible. Months of work have resulted in an incredible victory. But the battle is not over.

We are working to turn the debate on this issue to a debate on how Canadians can live with dignity.

We recognize that many people have raised legitimate concerns.

It is our goal to work with members of parliament and other Canadian leaders to identify ways to:

- improve palliative/hospice care throughout Canada, 

- change attitudes and improve services for people with disabilities, 

- institute an effective national suicide prevention strategy, 

- promote programs that identify and eliminate the scourge of elder abuse.

We must continue to build a nation that upholds the dignity of all its citizens.
We must continue to create a paradigm that protects all Canadians, including its most vulnerable.
We reject the concept that killing can be the answer to problems that are properly solved by a caring society.

Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca
euthanasiaprevention@on.aibn.com
1-877-439-3348

Please enable the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition to continue its successful work by making a donation today.

Our investment of resources to defeat Bill C-384 has left us with a huge financial need. http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Donations.htm

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Responds to Francine Lalonde’s National Post Article

Today, Francine Lalonde published an article in the National Post promoting her private members bill, Bill C-384, which would legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide for those 18 years and older.

Lalonde’s article omits the topic of elder abuse and misrepresents the bill’s provisions.

In Canada, elder abuse is a widespread problem, which is often unreported. Older persons with money are a prime target with family members the usual perpetrators. See e.g. Canada’s official website at: http://www.seniors.gc.ca/c.4nt.2nt3col@.jsp?lang=eng&geo=110&lang=eng&geo=169&cid=161

Perpetrators can also be strangers, for example, Melissa Friedrich, Canada's “Internet Black Widow.”

Contrary to Lalonde’s article, C-384 lacks basic protections for patients. For example, the patient is not required to be lucid at the time of application. A patient must only “appear” to be lucid. C-384 also allows an heir, who will benefit from the death, to serve as power of attorney to approve the euthanasia or assisted suicide. The death is also not required to be witnessed by disinterested persons. Without witnesses, the opportunity is created for someone else to administer the lethal agent to the patient without the patient’s consent. Even if the patient struggled, who would know?

C-384 is a recipe for elder abuse. For more detailed information, see memo to parliament: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/1016_001.pdf

Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
1-877-439-3348
euthanasiaprevention@on.aibn.com
www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca

Margaret Dore, Lawyer
www.margaretdore.com

Life with Dignity is the right of every Canadian.

Every Canadian deserves excellent end-of-life care.

Every Canadian deserves to be treated with equality, especially people with disabilities and those who live with chronic physical or mental pain.

Every Canadian deserves to be protected from undue influence and be provided respect.

Bill C-384 is not limited to terminally illness, it allows euthanasia and assisted suicide for people who experience chronic physical or mental pain.

Bill C-384 defines competency as “appearing to be lucid.” In other words you do not have to be actually lucid, and

Bill C-384 is a recipe for elder abuse, it does not require a witness at the time of death and employs a relaxed standard of competency, “appearing to be lucid”. Considering the prevalence of elder abuse in Canada today, every MP should oppose this bill.

Every Canadian deserves excellent care, not to be killed.

Members of Parliament need to soundly defeat Bill C-384

Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Box 25033, London ON N6C 6A8
1-877-439-3348
euthanasiaprevention@on.aibn.com

Physician-assisted suicide is not “legal” in Montana; doctors and others participate at their peril.

From the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Montana State Senator Greg Hinkle:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition & Montana State Senator Greg Hinkle: Physician-assisted suicide is not “legal” in Montana; doctors and others participate at their peril.

MONTANA. Today, the Missoulian reported that the suicide/ euthanasia promotion group, Compassion & Choices, has claimed that more than one Montanan has used physician-assisted suicide since a Montana Supreme Court ruling was issued on December 31, 2010. http://www.missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_f857084e-4402-11df-8d38-001cc4c002e0.html.

The ruling in Baxter v. State, did not, however, “legalize” physician-assisted suicide in Montana. Baxter instead held that a physician accused of homicide for killing his or her patient would be allowed to assert a “consent of the victim defense.” Read analysis here: http://www.montanafamily.org/portfolio/pdfs/Baxter_Decision_Analysis_v2.pdf

Tellingly, the Missoulian article does not give the names of the doctors or other persons allegedly involved, who if they were involved, face potential criminal and civil liability or professional discipline.

Public policy reasons against physician-assisted suicide include its potential for abuse, for example, by an heir with designs on an older person’s assets.

April 9, 2010.
Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
1-877-439-3348

Senator Greg Hinkle
Montana state Senate
406-827-4645