Assisted Suicide: the Precautionary Principle and the Tasmanian Premier

By: Paul Russell - is the director of Hope Australia.
HOPE Australia

precautionary principle — n: the precept that an action should not be taken if the consequences are uncertain and potentially dangerous (World English Dictionary )

Paul Russell

The commitment of newly appointed Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings to supporting a euthanasia and assisted suicide agenda in that state’s parliament would seem to elevate the issue to a new alert level in the Apple Isle. The Labor/Green alliance forged by her predecessor, David Bartlett, with Greens leader, Nick McKim will, no doubt, be honoured in the next few months by the introduction of yet another euthanasia bill.

This leaves me to wonder at the enduring nature (or lack of) and consideration given to the two inquiries conducted by the Tasmanian Parliament on euthanasia and assisted suicide in the last decade or so. In 1998 the Community Development Committee’s Inquiry into the Need for Legislation in Tasmania on Voluntary Euthanasia for the Terminally Ill rejected euthanasia as a bad idea in clear and emphatic terms. In 2009, the committee set up to examine McKim’s own Dignity with Dying Bill rejected his approach also.

While the 2009 inquiry dealt specifically with the bill in question, it inescapably echoed the findings of the earlier inquiry. The 1998 inquiry, it should be said (to this writer at least) is a document worthy of being read by anyone interested in the issue. Certainly, for the current Tasmanian Parliament, it should be on every MPs reading list.

Consider Finding #8: The Committee found that the codification of voluntary euthanasia legislation could not adequately provide the necessary safeguards against abuse.

Remember, this is a general comment about euthanasia – not about a particular euthanasia bill. In that context and by reflection on the failure of recent bills here and overseas and also upon the mounting data showing the rates of abuse from jurisdictions where euthanasia is practiced, the statement is clearly true in an absolute sense.

Euthanasia legislation can never be made safe from abuse. Safeguards, so-called, can never provide certainty. (As Wesley Smith once observed, safeguards are really only included so as to make legislators (and all of us into the bargain) feel somewhat at ease about legislating for killing.)

Interesting that the 2009 inquiry should then make the following observation: The Dying with Dignity Bill 2009 has been described as containing insufficient safeguards or for having too many safeguards to enable a sufferer seeking assistance to end their life. (finding #2)

How is it that a bill could be simultaneously criticised for having too many or too few safeguards? We can understand insufficient safeguards in terms of the finding of the earlier inquiry, but what are we to make of the counter-claim by some that McKim’s bill contained too many?

South Australian Green MLC, Mark Parnell gives us a clue in his speeches on his failed attempts in the SA Upper House in 2009 and 2010:

One of the dilemmas that we have got is that we want safeguards, but we do not simply want to put obstacles in the way of people so that they cannot ever use it. We have got to get the balance right.” (2009)

“I know that some people will not be happy until enough hurdles are put in place to make the laws unworkable, and that is always the tension in law reform like this. We want safeguards. We want strong safeguards, but the safeguards need to have a purpose behind them, and the purpose needs to be the prevention of misuse or abuse.” (2010)

“In terms of some of the comments that other members made, the Hon. Ann Bressington, as she did last time, has sympathy and support for some of the concepts in voluntary euthanasia and, in particular, the people in the terminal phase of a terminal illness. That might be something that we need to revisit: whether the eligibility criteria is simply too broad for members of parliament to accept, but that will be a decision for another day.” (2010)

Parnell has a dilemma: not enough safeguards would mean that his bill would fail to attract enough votes to pass. Too many safeguards would render his bill ineffective in terms of its stated aims. His suggestion that ‘we have got to get the balance right’ would seem to be a denial of the reality that drafting a bill that would prevent abuse is an impossibility. The inexhaustible variations to personal circumstances and diagnoses alone should tell us that; let alone the vagaries of human nature.

So, considering safeguards as points on a line, we could observe that moving toward fewer safeguards increases the risk of abuse while swinging back towards more safeguards, while certainly decreasing risk, can never remove risk entirely.

Paul Russell & Alex Schadenberg
at Tasmanian Parliament.

This would seem to be an argument for the status quo; that is: a firm no to euthanasia. But on our line the starting or ‘zero point’ is not a place where no risk exists. As Parnell also acknowledges, euthanasia already exists; with and without consent. It is merely, therefore, only a point where we have not legislated to create an opportunity for abuse, pure and simple.

It strikes me, therefore, that the precautionary principle should apply in the upcoming debate in Tasmania. It should fall to the Premier, or to whomever it is that sponsors the new bill, to prove beyond doubt that no risk of abuse exists in their model of legislation. The use of this principle is an accepted standard across the globe in many spheres of activity (such as environmental protection and drug approval), why not in matters of life and death? There should always be a higher burden of proof upon those who want to usher in change than upon those who argue for the status quo.

Six countries, Six defeats

Dr. Peter Saunders, the Campaign Director of the Care Not Killing Alliance in the UK and a speaker at the upcoming Third International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide that will be in Vancouver BC on June 3 - 4, 2010, yesterday published an article about the fact that euthanasia and assisted suicide bills are being defeated everywhere.

His article titled: Six countries, Six defeats was published one day before the bill in Hawaii was unanimously defeat in the Health Committee in Hawaii and his article didn't report the massive defeat of the euthanasia bill in Western Australia by 24 to 11 in September 2010.

Those people who think that the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide are inevitable, need to examine the reality.

Saunders comments are also important because assisted suicide bills are now being debated in Montana, Vermont, New Hampshire, Hawaii, and in Quebec a government committee is receiving input from its citizens concerning the concept of turning a blind-eye to the laws in Canada that prohibit euthanasia.

Peter Saunders wrote:

Last November I reported on the overwhelming defeat in the Scottish Parliament of Margo Macdonald’s End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill by the margin of 85 to 16.

MSPs were persuaded that any weakening of the law to allow euthanasia or assisted suicide would put vulnerable people under pressure to end their lives.

This was not an isolated incident. In January 2010, an ‘Oregon Style’ assisted suicide bill was defeated in the US state of New Hampshire by a vote of 242 to 113.

On 21 April the Canadian parliament defeated Bill C-384, a bill that would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide by a vote of 228 to 59.

In November a bill that would have legalized euthanasia in South Australia was defeated by a vote of 12 to 9.

The pace of rejection of similar bills has continued into 2011.

On 19 January, in a preliminary reading, the Knesset (Israeli House of Representatives) rejected a law proposal that would have allowed terminally ill patients to self-administer drugs that would cause them to die.

NK Chaim Oron (Meretz), who initiated the law titled 'Death by Prescription,' proposed that a dying patient who is able and of legal age should receive, upon request, a prescription for a lethal dose of a sedative. Only 16 MKs voted for the law, while 48 voted against it.

On 20 January the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that while there is a ‘human right’ to suicide, the state has no obligation to provide citizens with the means to commit suicide. The court found Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing the right to life, particularly persuasive.

‘The Court notes that the vast majority of member States place more weight on the protection of an individual’s life than on the right to end one’s life and concludes that the States have a broad margin of appreciation in that respect,’ explained Grégor Puppinck, the director of the European Center for Law and Justice in a press release about the decision.

The court therefore concluded that states have no direct responsibility to help their citizens commit suicide by providing lethal drugs and also ruled that respect for the right to life compels the state to prevent a person from committing suicide if such a decision is not taken freely and with full knowledge

And just last night the French Senate rejected proposals to legalise assisted suicide and euthanasia, by 170 votes to 142. Francois Fillon, the French prime minister, had spoken out strongly against the proposals.

The pace of rejection of such legislation is exceeded only by the frenetic rate at which pro-euthanasia groups are desperately bringing forward new bills.

But it’s not working because parliamentarians and judges who consider the matter carefully are not being fooled by emotive arguments, hard cases and misinformed public opinion.

In a democratic society there are limits to human autonomy. The law is there primarily to protect vulnerable people and public safety will always trump the demands of determined individuals backed by pressure groups who want to undermine existing laws.

As Lord Falconer’s discredited Commission on Assisted Dying moves into its third month trying to craft a justification for changing the law in the UK one hopes that British parliamentarians are reading their newspapers and learning from the wisdom of jurisdictions all around the world.

Hawaii Legislature scuttles assisted suicide

Great news.

Yesterday the Senate Health Committee in Hawaii unanimously rejected Bill SB 803, a bill that would have legalized assisted suicide. SB 803 was sponsored by Hawaii Senator Ige.

The article that was published today by CNBC:

A Hawaii legislative panel on Monday unanimously voted down a bill that would have legalized physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill, ending the possibility that it would become law this year.

The Senate Health Committee dropped the issue following 4½ hours of testimony overwhelmingly against the proposal.

Dozens of car-accident survivors, elderly care providers and disabled Hawaii residents told state lawmakers they shouldn't allow terminally ill, competent adults to receive medication to end life. The bill prohibited mercy killings and lethal injections.

A much smaller group of people testified that they should be able to decide their fate.

Kevin Inouye spoke from his wheelchair about how he thought about killing himself for five years following a car wreck, and he said he would have lied to doctors to make it happen if the law had allowed him to.

"All I thought about was killing myself. I had no hope," said Inouye, who wore a yellow sticker saying, "No doctor prescribed death." "As soon as my situation got a little bit better and I learned to live with my disabilities, I wanted to live again."

Others, such as Marcia Linville, who went through two hip replacements and couldn't walk for eight months, said she deserves the right to end her own life if the time comes.

"As much as I want to live, when the time comes, if I want to die, that is also my choice — nobody else's," she said.

Health Committee Chairman Josh Green, a Big Island emergency room doctor, said he was swayed by the vast majority of testifiers who opposed the bill.

"For an issue of this magnitude, I believe we need to have much more agreement as a community," said Green, D-Milolii-Waimea. "So for now, we need to find other ways to support those dealing with end-of-life decisions with the greatest possible compassion and respect."

Many opponents of assisted suicide said people who are sick, injured or depressed aren't able to make competent life-or-death decisions for themselves.

"We do not need a law that is presented to people when they are vulnerable, sick and unable to think clearly," said Kim Howard, who has been a quadriplegic for 20 years but still paints art by holding a brush in her mouth.

Hawaii last heard assisted suicide proposals in 2005 and 2007, when the legislation failed to make it out of committee as it did Monday.

Conference Opposes Euthanasia, Honors 'Italy's Terri Schiavo'

Conference on Second Anniversary of Eluana Englaro's Death by Dehydration in Rome

On Wednesday, February 9th, pro-life and anti-euthanasia leaders are gathering in Rome to remember the death of Eluana Englaro, who is often referred to as "Italy's Terri Schiavo" for the many similarities between the ways they were unjustly killed. The one-day conference will also raise awareness and support for an Italian anti-euthanasia bill that is circulating in the Italian Parliament.

Eluana Englaro, who was cognitively disabled, died on February 9, 2009 of dehydration, after her father, Beppino Englaro, was successful in having her fluids and food removed. The case was widely publicized as Italian politicians took opposing sides in the matter, and many advocates from Terri Schiavo's late father, Bob Schindler, to the Vatican, pleaded for her life to be spared.

"There are many similarities between Terri's and Eluana's cases: both boiled down to a family member and the courts trying to end their lives, and being opposed by other family members, national politicians and the Church," said Joseph Meaney, Acting Director of HLI's Rome office, and one of the presenters at the conference. "Eluana's case has national and regional significance, as Italian legislators are trying to pass an anti-euthanasia bill. Euthanasia advocates are also busy throughout the European Union trying to expand this grisly practice, which is already sadly legal in several member nations."

Human Life International, Italia Christiana and Militia Christi are co-sponsoring the one-day conference at the prestigious Roma Cavour Conference center.

Oregon citizen wants assisted suicide for people with Alzheimer's

Rodger Winn, an Oregon citizen, wrote an article promoting the extension of assisted suicide laws to people with Alzheimer's that he titled: A matter of choice

Winn is proposing that the answer to people with Alzheimer's is to give them a lethal dose.

Since when is it a matter of choice for people who cannot ask for assisted suicide, and what happens when the person is unable to "self-administer" the lethal dose themselves. Well, self-administer is really a misnomer in Oregon because it has been defined as "to ingest" and because there is no witness required at the time of death. To ingest could mean that you swallow or that it is absorbed throught your IV.

I wonder if Winn would say that there is no fear of a slippery slope in Oregon?

Link to Winn's letter that was published on Oregon Live on Saturday, January 29, 2011.

A bill to legalize assisted suicide introduced in New Hampshire - again

House Bill HB 513 FN was introduced by Representative Charles Weed, Representative Parkhurst, and Representative Vaillancourt.

The bill is slightly amended from the bill that was defeated in New Hampshire in January 2010 by a vote of 242 to 113. Once again, the bill is an "Oregon style" bill that claims to have tight safeguards, where in fact the safeguards are an illusion.

The 2010 assisted suicide bill was a recipe for elder abuse. The current bill has similar problems.

The sponsors of the assisted suicide bill have pushed it into the Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs committee rather than the Judiciary committee. The new strategy for the suicide lobby is to promote their bills as health care bills rather than amendments to criminal law. The suicide lobby believes that politicians are more likely to accept assisted suicide if it is defined within a medical model rather than a legal model.

Assisted suicide legalization bills have been introduced in Montana, Hawaii, and New Hampshire. Vermont Governor, Peter Shumlin, has promised to have an assisted suicide bill introduced in Vermont.

Assisted Death, Palliative Care And Human Rights

An article by Kim Barnhardt in the Canadian Medical Association Journal discusses an article written by Mary Shariff, from the faculty of law at the University of Manitoba. The article is basically stating that the issue of assisted suicide must be viewed within the context of human rights. Based on a human rights model, the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide should not be considered in Canada until palliative care is adequately and equally developed.

This is a very strong arguement considering the fact that Quebec is considering turning a blind-eye to acts of euthanasia, even though they are not a leader in palliative care and many of their citizens lack access to good palliative care.

The result would be that people would be given the choice between suffering or dying, in other words choice would simply be an illusion.

The article stated:

The issues of assisted death and palliative care in Canada should be discussed in the context of human rights, states a commentary published in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal).

While the topic of assisted death has been a recent discussion in Canada, we cannot address until the issue of equal access to palliative care has been resolved. In Canada, at least 70% of residents lack access to palliative care and for those who do have access, it is inequitable.

"The equalization of palliative care must occur before legalization of assisted suicide, otherwise, there runs the very real risk that a decision to request assisted death is not fully consenting because of the lack of meaningful choice in the ability to alleviate pain and distress," writes Mary Shariff, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba.

She cites articles 12 the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health as requiring that the scope of the Canadian palliative care system be fully optimized before assisted death is legalized.

"The decisions surrounding our policies on health care must be considered in the broader context of the express commitments and aspirations that we have made as a country. If our tax dollars fall short of providing integrated end-of-life care to all Canadians equally, then our legislators ought to acknowledge and incorporate that fact before moving forward with the legalization of assisted death," concludes the author.

Source:
Kim Barnhardt
Canadian Medical Association Journal

The report from the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care will soon be released. It is important for all Canadians that the recommendations from this all-party ad-hoc committee be implemented.

Parents of dying baby simply want to bring their baby home

By Alex Schadenberg

The family of Baby Joseph Maraachli have been told that their baby will not survive. Baby Joseph requires a breathing tube and the hospital is demanding that the breathing tube be removed, while the Maraachli family have asked that a tracheotomy be done to enable the family to bring Joseph home where he would die in their arms. Why is the hospital and the courts denying the Maraachli family an opportunity to allow their child to die naturally on their terms?

Yesterday, LifeSiteNews asked me for comments concerning the case of Baby Joseph Maraachli. I stated to LifeSiteNews that:

“I have no idea why the London Health Sciences Centre would be putting such a legal and emotional burden upon the Maraachli family. If there are complications related to the tracheotomy, well, the child is supposedly dying anyway.”

“The fact is that this family is living through an emotionally draining experience and all they want to do is love their son with the time that he may have left. Why must the hospital impose their plan of death upon the family?”

Today I received a phone call from Joseph's father, Moe Maraachli. After speaking to Mr Maraachli I can only say that my heart goes out to their family and I hope that a resolve will come to their case soon.

The facts of the case:
Baby Joseph Maraachli has been at the Victoria Hospital in London, Ontario, since mid-October when his parents, Moe and Sana Maraachli of Windsor, found he had difficulty breathing and was losing all color in his face.

Doctors discovered that he suffers from “severe and progressively deteriorating neurological problems,” in the words of a Windsor Star reporter, that there is no hope for recovery.

The doctors petitioned the consent and capacity board to have the breathing tube, the enables Joseph to breath, removed.

The Maraachli family have asked that instead of removing the breathing tube that a tracheotomy be done to allow the family to bring Joseph home where he would die in the loving arms of his family, without choking to death.

The consent and capacity board sided with the doctors which is not surprising considering the fact that Ontario's consent and capacity board almost always side with the doctor.

The Maraachli family is challenging the decision of the consent and capacity board to the Ontario Superior Court.

Eight years ago the Maraachli's daughter died from similar complications; she had a tracheotomy done and died at home. The Maraachli's want Joseph to also have the opportunity to die at home.

My response:
Since when has our society denied the parents of a supposedly dying child the right to allow the child to die at home on their terms.

This is a devastatingly sad case, that has been exasperated by the unnecessary legal battle that is totally based on the question of who has the right to decide.

In a health care system that we are being constantly told, is out of money, why are they expending tax payers dollars to bring a family to court, who simply want to bring their baby home?

Assisted Suicide? “I was afraid to leave my husband alone again with doctors and nurses”

This was a letter I recently found in the Hawaii Free Press concerning one persons experience with assisted suicide in Oregon.

Dear Editor,

Hello from Oregon.

When my husband was seriously ill several years ago, I collapsed in a half-exhausted heap in a chair once I got him into the doctor's office, relieved that we were going to get badly needed help (or so I thought).

To my surprise and horror, during the exam I overheard the doctor giving my husband a sales pitch for assisted suicide. 'Think of what it will spare your wife, we need to think of her' he said, as a clincher.

Now, if the doctor had wanted to say 'I don't see any way I can help you, knowing what I know, and having the skills I have' that would have been one thing. If he'd wanted to opine that certain treatments weren't worth it as far as he could see, that would be one thing. But he was tempting my husband to commit suicide. And that is something different.

I was indignant that the doctor was not only trying to decide what was best for David, but also what was supposedly best for me (without even consulting me, no less).

We got a different doctor, and David lived another five years or so. But after that nightmare in the first doctor's office, and encounters with a 'death with dignity' inclined nurse, I was afraid to leave my husband alone again with doctors and nurses, for fear they'd morph from care providers to enemies, with no one around to stop them.

It's not a good thing, wondering who you can trust in a hospital or clinic. I hope you are spared this in Hawaii.

Sincerely,
Kathryn Judson, Oregon

Oregon records do not track elder abuse

Montana Senator Greg Hinkle wrote a letter to the editor that was published in the online edition of the Missoulian paper. The letter was posted on Monday, January 31, 2011.

This is what Senator Hinkle wrote:

Oregon records do not track elder abuse

Stephen Speckart (guest column, Jan. 18) is correct that elder abuse is my major concern with legalizing aid in dying, better known as assisted suicide and euthanasia. He is, however, completely uninformed when it comes to Oregon’s records, which he claims demonstrate that none of the people who used Oregons law were abused. These records don’t even talk about abuse.

Legalizing assisted suicide is, regardless, inherently abusive. This is because it allows heirs and others who will benefit from a person’s death to pressure and abuse that person to cut short his or her life. This is why I have proposed the Elder Abuse Prevention Act, which will remove the uncertainty created by the Baxter decision and clearly prohibit aid in dying.

For more information, please read my report to the Legislature describing why assisted suicide creates new paths of abuse, especially for older people. My report can be viewed here.

Copies of the Oregon and Washington after-death reporting forms are attached to the appendix. They do not mention elder abuse.

To learn about my bill at a glance, please go here.

Sen. Greg Hinkle,
Thompson Falls

Dehydrating Aruna Shanbaug - Killing or Letting Die?

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Aruna, a nurse, experienced a serious cognitive disability when she was strangled with a chain and raped in 1973. She has been living in what has been described as an unresponsive state for 38 years.

What is significant is that Shanbaug is not dying. She is a human person who is in an incredibly vulnerable condition. She is not requiring medical treatment, but rather she continues to live as long as she is fed. This is similar to the case of Terri Schiavo.

There are a few serious points in these cases.

To dehydrate Shanbaug to death is euthanasia. 

Shanbaug is not otherwise dying and the action and intention in removing Shanbaug's feeding tube is to cause her death by dehydration. She would die of dehydration and not natural causes. To provide hydration and nutrition to a person with a cognitive disability, who cannot receive it in any other manner, should be defined as normal care. It is not excessive, extraordinary, or burdensome and it is able to be done, with minimal training, by anyone.

This is not a case of letting Shanbaug die. If she were dying of a medical condition and experiencing end of life symptoms that indicated that continuing her feeding would provide no further benefit, then discontinuing feeding is not the cause of the death, but rather the acceptance of the limits of life.

When society decides that killing people by dehydration, which should be called euthanasia by dehydration, is acceptable, then society will have agreed that the most vulnerable in our society have lost their right to protection and are able to killed by others. There are many people in this condition already and there are many more people in similar conditions who would soon be deemed to be "better off dead."

It is very concerning that the courts are being petitioned to have Shanbaug dehydrated to death by a person who is not a family member or a friend from years before, but rather by Pinki Varani, a woman who wrote a book about Shanbaug.

The life of Schanbaug is being defended by the officials at the Mombai hospital, where she had worked 38 years before, and where she currently lives.

Ms Virani has stated that the court needs to consider the medical definition of death. If people with cognitive conditions are labelled as dead, then the meaning of life will be altered to a man-made definition. Who else will be defined as already dead?

Finally, what is the intention of Ms Virani. She wrote a book about Shanbaug and now she is petitioning the court to dehydrate her to death. Is this a case where she thinks she can make more money on the sequel?

A few years ago, the United Nations declaration on the rights of people with disabilities stated that people with disabilities had a right to be fed. Scanbaug has a right to be fed.

Society needs to stop considering who should live and who should die and instead society needs to focus on how to provide the best care possible for the living and how to ensure that all human beings are being treated with equality and dignity.

The case of Aruna Shanbaug is heart wrenching.

Elder abuse, often unnoticed, growing at alarming rate

An article published in Sign on San Diego reports in the astounding growth in reported cases and prosecutions of elder abuse cases.

The article focuses on the growth of the scourge of elder abuse in society and it refers to the horrific case of Arnold V. "Max" Bauer, a 93 year old Pearl Harbour survivor who was allegedly bilked for thousands of dollars by his live-in caretaker.

The article explains the growth in elder abuse. It stated:

Experts estimate that only one in 13 elder-abuse cases are reported nationwide, based on various surveys and studies.

“We are only getting the tip of the iceberg,” said San Diego County Sheriff’s Sgt. Mark Varnau, who oversees financial- and elder-abuse crime units for his agency. “It’s a dirty little secret and Mr. Bauer’s case is a very clear example of how someone is isolated and forgotten about.”

In San Diego County, the District Attorney’s Office has seen the number of elder-abuse prosecutions rise in the past five years — from 183 cases in 2006 to 238 last year. The county’s elder-abuse hotline receives nearly 10,000 calls a year

The problem of elder abuse is all encompassing. The article states:

Many cases have both financial and physical abuse, said Paul Greenwood, deputy district attorney and head of the office’s Elder Abuse Prosecution Unit. ...

“We are not able to provide the infrastructure to deal with the avalanche of referrals that are going to be coming in the next five years,” Greenwood said.

An addendum to the national Healthcare Reform Act, which Congress approved last year, would provide money for combating elder abuse. But there has been no funding allocation so far.

Elder abuse is often unreported because it is done by family or friends:

Nearly 95 percent of seniors live at home and almost all elder abuse occurs there, the majority perpetrated by family members, said Kathleen Quinn, executive director of the Illinois-based National Adult Protective Services Association. “Trusted others” — such as home health-care workers, neighbors and friends — make up the next largest group of abusers.

“It’s absolutely an enormous problem,” Quinn said.

Then there is the problem of "New best friends."

“These crimes occur because families are separated by distance and a new “friend” comes into the lives of these elders,” Greenwood said. “They don’t rob elders with guns and knives, they extract the assets through charm and flowers and boxes of chocolates.”

Reporting senior abuse can be difficult for those who may notice something is off: a garden that’s usually lovingly tended becomes overgrown, a once-tidy house falls into disarray, a sociable senior no longer answers the phone or chats over a fence line, an elderly person is confused about the household finances, a caretaker sounds overly defensive.

The article was concluded by a quote from Sgt. Mark Varnau:

“It’s not a question of if they are going to fail,” Varnau said. “It’s a matter of when. People slip away and become completely vulnerable to being victimized.”

Tasmania's new premier supports euthanasia.

Last October I spent two days in Tasmania. I made a presentation in the Tasmania parliament building and at one other location.

While in Tasmania, I was informed that the Tasmanian parliament will debate a bill to legalize euthanasia that will be sponsored by the Greens. At the time, I was informed, that Premier Bartlett (Labor) was opposed to euthanasia, but that he needed the Greens to maintain his coalition government.

On Friday, Michael Cook, from Australia, wrote an Article explaining that the new Premier of Tasmania, Lara Giddings, intends to support the Greens in sponsoring a euthanasia bill.

Last year, I was told, that the issue of euthanasia was debated in the Tasmanian parliament in 2009 and it was defeated by a vote of 15 to 7 in the lower house.

Michael Cook's article is pessimistic concerning the prospect of defeating the euthanasia bill in Tasmania. He stated:

Ms Giddings has a difficult task ahead of her as the leader of a minority Labor government in partnership with the Greens. She can only stay in office by courting them, but she also needs to ensure that her coalition partners do not continue to steal the votes of social progressives who have voted for Labor in the past.

On her first day in office, Ms Giddings appealed to the Greens by confirming that she would support euthanasia. A private bill which proposed by one of the two Green members. ...

With the support of the new Premier, there is a good chance that the euthanasia bill will pass.

Based on the people I met in Tasmania, I am more optimistic than Cook.

The group HOPE, under the leadership of Paul Russell, successfully worked to defeat the euthanasia bill in South Australia and HOPE is working to build contacts in Tasmania.

I encourage the leaders in Tasmania to have hope and work with HOPE.

Physician-Assisted Suicides in Oregon in 2010 Even More Unknown Information

The 2010, annual Oregon Death with Dignity report was recently released.

The most important message is what it doesn't tell us. It doesn't tell us whether the person who died consented when the lethal dose was administered.

Further to that, the physician is rarely present at the time the lethal dose is administered. If the person does not consent, who would know?

The reporting system has a conflict of interest, whereby the physician who wrote the lethal prescription submits the report. The physician will not admit to abuse.

The Physicians for Compassionate Care sent out a press release yesterday concerning the 2010 Death with Dignity annual report from Oregon. Link to the press release

Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation

Press Release January 27, 2011

Physician-Assisted Suicides in Oregon in 2010 - Even More Unknown Information

The annual report from the Oregon Public Health Division (OPHD) regarding physician-assisted suicides in 2010 has been released this month, and contains information received by them as of January 7, 2011. This release of information is occurring two months earlier in the year than for prior years’ reports. Because of the hastiness in releasing the report, they acknowledge that not all information for 2010 has been received by them. PCCEF is concerned with multiple areas of the OPHD report on Oregon assisted suicides for the 2010 year.

* The report is incomplete. Specifically, they have not received information on 15 patients for whom prescriptions were written in 2010.

* The report acknowledges 65 individuals who died from physician-assisted suicide in 2010, yet concedes there may be others who have died in 2010 for whom they have not received information.

* Not all who attempt to take the [lethal dose] will die. Overdoses failed to cause two individuals to die. One regained consciousness within 24 hours and died of the underlying illness five days later. Another gained consciousness 3½ days after ingestion and died of the underlying illness three months later. Vomiting was reported in both people. These are not easy drugs to take, and they are very bitter and foul-tasting drugs. The report fails to detail why these two people chose not to repeat an overdose. Perhaps they found the experience less pleasant than the promoters led them to believe.

* Only one of the 65 had a psychiatric or psychological referral. OHSU researchers in 2008 reported that 25% of patients requesting assisted suicide were considered to be depressed. There continues to be no protection for depressed patients in Oregon.

* The report has far more unknown information than has ever previously been reported:

Category Unknown Information

* Complications for 37 of 65 patients
* Emergency Medical Services called for 37 of 65 patients
* Minutes between ingestion & unconsciousness for 33 of 65 patients
* Minutes between ingestion & death for 33 of 65 patients

When such a substantial proportion of important information is unknown, how are Oregonians to know what is really happening with assisted suicides in the state?

Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation promotes the ethic that all human life has inherent value and that physician-assisted suicide:

* Undermines trust in the patient-physician relationship.

* Changes the societal role of the physician from healing to medical killing.

* Endangers the value that society places on life, specifically for those who are most vulnerable, those who are frail, elderly, and at the end of life.

French Senate defeats euthanasia bill by 170 to 142.

Last night the Senate in France defeated a bill to legalize euthanasia by a vote of 170 to 142.

The euthanasia bill was sponsored in the French Senate by Jean-Pierre Godefroy (Parti Socialiste), Alain Fouché (UMP) and François Autain and Guy Fischer (Parti communiste-Parti de gauche).

The bill would have allowed euthanasia for people with disabilities, those with chronic conditions and people who are defined as terminal.

Prime Minister François Fillon spoke out against the euthanasia bill a few days earlier. Mr Fillion said that:

although he had never had to face the nightmare of living with someone as they died, he was still against a law allowing actively helping someone to die.

He thought such a law would not fit in with the “basic values of our society” and that to legislate giving the right to end someone’s life was a limit “we should not go beyond”. He said it was also “very dangerous” as it did not allow for any consultation with the family.

Mr Fillon said the debate should also take account of the actions taken since 2008 by Nicolas Sarkozy who has made the care of terminally ill people “an absolute priority”.

That had led to the development of a palliative care programme that has seen the creation of 1,200 new beds and the start, last March, of specific financial aid to allow families to care for terminally ill loved ones.

A recent poll in France found that:

- 52% of the respondents thought that legalizing euthanasia would include a "risk of abuse."
- 60% of the respondents thought that France should make the development of palliative care a priority before considering the legalization of euthanasia, while 38% thought that France should legalize euthanasia.

The concerns of the French citizen is well founded. Recent studies in Belgium found in the Flanders region that 32% of the euthanasia deaths were done without explicit request or consent and another study found that 47.8% of the euthanasia deaths were not reported.

Vermont nurse - offers a vision of caring rather than assisted suicide

Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin has made the legalization of assisted suicide in Vermont a priority for his government.

In response to Shumlin, Lynne Caulfield, a registered nurse from Dummerston Vermont wrote an inspiring letter that was published in the Rutland Herald paper on January 23, 2011. Caufield made several valid points and she referred to her own personal experience in the death of her husband.

Caufield first stated:

It is hard to believe that with all the pressing budget issues facing the 2011 Legislature, Gov. Peter Shumlin has made doctor-prescribed death one of his first priorities.

Funded with money outside of Vermont, the proponents of doctor-prescribed death have targeted Vermont as their next victim. It is a sad day when human beings want to help other human beings to die rather than extending compassionate and respectful care to ease suffering and pain. It is especially disturbing that health care professionals are being called upon to assist patients to die rather than live.

She then brings home her point by writing about the ethical code that she follows as a registered nurse. She stated:

As part of the Florence Nightingale pledge, nurses have sworn an oath to “abstain from whatever is deleterious … to not knowingly administer any harmful drug.” The pledge also says, “With loyalty I will endeavor to aid the physician in his work and devote myself to the welfare of those committed to my care.”

Doctors and nurses are expected to exercise beneficence, which is to “do good,” and non-maleficence, which is to “do no harm.” We have pledged to care, not destroy. To expect a doctor to prescribe a lethal dose of barbiturates is the ultimate violation of non-maleficence.

Death is permanent and irreversible. Doctor-prescribed death should not be legalized in Vermont, because it is not needed. The legalization of doctor-prescribed death could lead to potential abuse and is not without complications.

You’ve heard it said, “Nothing is certain in life except death and taxes.” (Some add housework!)... With the advancements in the medical treatment of pain and palliative care, we should assist the chronically ill and dying with compassionate care to make each day comfortable, valuable and precious

.
She then opened her life to us by telling us about her personal family experience.

My husband, Jack, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in December 2002. Prognosis for patients with pancreatic cancer is often poor. He was treated aggressively with chemotherapy and radiation. In September 2003, he was told the cancer had metastasized to his liver and that there was no hope. He was devastated by the news since he wanted more time to spend with his family and our five children in particular.

If the option of doctor-prescribed death was available to someone in this situation, one might resort to this drastic step with no recourse.

In my husband’s situation, the doctors were horribly mistaken. The cancer had not spread. Jack finished treatment and surgery. He lived two more years before receiving another diagnosis that the cancer had returned. Again, the doctors said he would be gone before Christmas, yet Jack lived until February and was able to savor more time with his family. He had wanted to write a letter to each of the children, and he was able to accomplish his desire. If he had listened to the doctors and chosen a doctor-prescribed lethal dose, he would have lost much precious time. We were present when he breathed his last breath. He was peaceful and comfortable.

Caufield then explained the reality of people dying by lethal dose. She stated:

Doctor-prescribed death is not a pretty picture. The doctor has to prescribe a lethal dose of barbiturates, which usually means 90 pills. The patient takes the pills home. Can you imagine swallowing 90 pills at once? A spoonful of sugar might have worked for Mary Poppins, but not for those patients who have trouble swallowing. There is no doctor present, no medical assistance. They are on their own.

The side effects from this lethal dose are multiplied times 90. Some of the side effects include gastrointestinal distress such as nausea and vomiting. Another complication is failure to die. It doesn’t always work, and then whom do you call? In the Netherlands, if one fails to die from the oral overdose, it is legal to give a lethal injection. Is this what we want for our fellow Vermonters?

She ended her letter by challenging society to care for the other.

One more important aspect that would be missing if doctor-prescribed death were to be legalized is that rich privilege we have to care for those we love. In our me-first society where we want everything disposable and convenient, caring for the chronically ill, the disabled and the dying is not something we are comfortable with or have time for.

Granted, it isn’t easy to care for your dying loved one. It isn’t convenient or quick, but it is an awesome privilege and a rich experience. My mother died last April after a long battle with breast cancer. She died peacefully at home surrounded with love and music. Each day was a gift as we cared for her and sought to help her experience those things that brought her joy.

We are called as human beings to care for one another deeply. It is one of the richest of human experiences. We don’t need doctor-prescribed death in Vermont; we just need to extend loving care to one another.

Thank you Lynne Caulfield for sharing with us your caring experience.

France's Prime Minister speaks out against euthanasia

The Connexion news service has reported that Prime Minister François Fillon has spoken out against a proposal that was debated in France's Senate to legalize euthanasia.

Prime Minister Fillon's comments were reported this way:

Speaking on plans going through the Senate today, Mr Fillion said that, although he had never had to face the nightmare of living with someone as they died, he was still against a law allowing actively helping someone to die.

He thought such a law would not fit in with the “basic values of our society” and that to legislate giving the right to end someone’s life was a limit “we should not go beyond”. He said it was also “very dangerous” as it did not allow for any consultation with the family.

Mr Fillon said the debate should also take account of the actions taken since 2008 by Nicolas Sarkozy who has made the care of terminally ill people “an absolute priority”.

That had led to the development of a palliative care programme that has seen the creation of 1,200 new beds and the start, last March, of specific financial aid to allow families to care for terminally ill loved ones.

The Connexion explained the proposed euthanasia bill in this way:

The law, proposed by Jean-Pierre Godefroy (Parti Socialiste), Alain Fouché (UMP) and François Autain and Guy Fischer (Parti communiste-Parti de gauche), is debated in the Senate this evening.

It proposes that “Each capable adult, in an advanced or terminal phase of a serious accidental or pathological terminal ailment, inflicting physical suffering and mental impairment that cannot be eased or that they can no longer bear, can ask for medical help that will allow, by deliberate act, a quick and pain-free death.”

At the same time, 700 protesters from the group - ADV - did a mass "die off" demonstration near the French Senate in Paris. It was reported by LifeSiteNews that:

The scene was played three times between 12:45 and 1:30 pm. local time. While the players – men and women of all ages – were lying “dead,” Tugdual Derville, spokesman for the ADV, called on the French Senate not to legalize euthanasia, arguing that it is never a solution for human suffering, but a way to deny ill, suffering and handicapped people their human dignity.

Derville also called for increased public support, financial and otherwise, for palliative care and for all the volunteers who help to make it possible. At the same time he pointed out that ADV is opposed to “overtreatment,” or intensive care which tends to prolong life beyond its natural course in an overly aggressive manner.

It was reported by LifeSiteNews that:

The French Senate commission, which voted in favor of a pro-euthanasia bill last week, retracted its vote. The Senate is now expected to adopt amendments rejecting the bill. However, the ADV and other pro-life groups are warning that the euthanasia lobby will not stop its efforts to make killing of the ill and suffering legal, all the more so because opinion polls show a majority of French people are now in favor of euthanasia.

Euthanasia and Organ Donation in Belgium

Michael Cook has written an interesting article about euthanasia and organ donation in Belgium. Several years ago I reported on a study that was done in Belgium where a woman who was going to die by euthanasia also consented to donate her organs.

It is interesting how the earliest cases of an unethical act are often done in controversial circumstances. The Belgium woman who died by euthanasia and then had her organs removed was a woman in locked-in syndrome. She was a cognitively disabled woman who died by euthanasia and then had her organs removed.

The concern about organ donation after euthansia in Belgium is made greater by the fact that Belgium presumes consent for Organ donation. The health of organs is often related to the health of the donor, making the prospect of waiting for consent before euthanasia in question. Organ donor rules in Belgium.

It should not surprise us that a recent study of euthanasia in the Flanders region of Belgium showed that 32% of euthanasia deaths were done without explicit request or consent.

Michael Cook wrote in his recent article:

A group of Belgian doctors are harvesting “high quality” organs from patients who have been euthanized. This is not a secret project, but one which they described openly at a conference organised by the Belgian Royal Medical Academy in December.

In a PowerPoint presentation, Dirk Ysebaert, Dirk Van Raemdonck, Michel Meurisse, of the University Hospitals Of Antwerp, Leuven And Liège, showed that about 20% of the 705 people who died through euthanasia (officially) in 2008 were suffering from neuromuscular disorders whose organs are relatively high quality for transplanting to other patients. This represents a useful pool of organs which could help to remedy a shortage of organs in Belgium (as everywhere else).

It is not clear from the presentation how many patients participated in their scheme. However, in a 2008 report, Belgian doctors explained that three patients had been euthanased between 2005 and 2007 and had agreed to donate their organs.

Euthanasia for organ transplant is a bit different from normal euthanasia, the doctors say, because they prefer that patients die in hospital rather than at home.

They have developed a protocol for the procedure.

• There has to be a strict separation between the euthanasia request, the euthanasia procedure, and the organ procurement. 

• The donor and his (or her) relatives have to consent. 

• The euthanasia is performed by a neurologist or psychiatrist and two house physicians. 

• Organ retrieval begins after clinical diagnosis of death by the three physicians. 

• And, of course, staff participation is voluntary.

It sounds very similar to the Groningen Protocol, the Protocol that allows Dutch physicians to euthanize newborns with disabilities.

How much pressure to convince people to die by euthanasia will be on people. First there is pressure based on the cost of medical care. Then there is pressure from family members who are tired of caring for the person. Then there is pressure on a person because society has made them feel like a burden. Now there is pressure because good will come from euthanasia if they donate their healthy organs.

The reason the organs are healthy is that the person is often not yet dying, but of course euthanasia takes care of that problem.

Link to Wesley Smith's recent blog comment on this issue.

Controling health care costs and legalizing assisted suicide in Vermont

Peter Shumlin

Peter Shumlin, the new Governor of Vermont is planning to aggressively control the cost of healthcare in Vermont. Is it a surprise that Shumlin is also planning to legalizing assisted suicide in Vermont?

I came across two letters to the Vermont Rutland Herald concerning Governor Shumlin's goal to control healthcare costs and his plans to legalize assisted suicide. I knew about his plan to legalize assisted suicide and I am not surprised by its possible connection to controlling healthcare costs in Vermont.

The first letter was written by Martha Hafner from Randolph Vermont titled - Choosing death is cheaper - states:

Speaking at the Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce Jan. 10, Gov. Peter Shumlin made his administration’s health care reform policy crystal clear: Vermont will be the first in the nation to aggressively pursue the central problem of controlling costs. ...

But cost-control enthusiasm must not be allowed to harm vulnerable Vermonters. I am speaking of a proposed bill that would legalize physician-assisted suicide. Say what you want about the lethal drug “choice,” it’s definitely cheap. A few dollars of pills can make unnecessary tens of thousands of dollars of expensive end-of-life care. And therein lies a great temptation and danger. ...

During the coming, decade-long effort to control health care costs, no-one should be pressured into taking cheap, lethal drugs. People will die unnecessarily and an essential trust in “the system” will be undermined. Anonymous health insurance bureaucrats must not be given the de facto power of life and death.

The second letter was written by Heather Sheppard from Cambridge Vermont titled - Let's not pioneer right to die - states:

I am troubled that our new governor wants Vermont to show the rest of the nation how to control health care costs (speech at Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce, January 2011), but also wants Vermont’s Legislature to be the nation’s first to legalize giving lethal pills to patients. I cannot say with certainty if these two “Vermont-leads-the-way” health care initiatives are connected. But as a former HMO health insurance sales rep, I know that end-of-life care costs insurance companies plenty, and that their “cost control” would improve if society’s very sick people begin to die prematurely by overdose of barbiturates.

It is up to our governor and the legislators pushing this bill to convince me and many other concerned Vermonters that health care reform will forbid legalized assisted suicide. If they cannot, we will dig in our heels and bring the message of “no death panels in Vermont” to our Statehouse. At least two Oregon people were denied life-extending care they wanted but were still offered coverage for death pills they didn’t want (“ABC Nightly News” story, June 2008). That is an appalling breach of trust. The “death with dignity” folks in Oregon said it could never happen there, and they were wrong, and it is their money funding the lobbyists for the Vermont campaign.

The bottom line is that we can’t let vulnerable Vermonters become victims of the bottom line.

When healthcare costs and legalized assisted suicide are combined, the result is a lethal brew.

Link to an article about the budget concerns in Vermont.

Link to article about healthcare costs in Vermont.

Vermont government being pressured by out-of-state suicide lobby to legalize assisted suicide.

I was reading my assisted suicide google alerts and I came across a letter to the Vermont Rutland Herald concerning the money that the (Oregon) Death With Dignity Political Action Fund is spending to pressure the Vermont government to legalize assisted suicide. I have already written about this issue in the past.

The letter from Meg Barnes from Shoreham Vermont (January 19)entitled "Using Vermont to push agenda" stated:

An out-of-state group has targeted Vermont for a new law with life-or-death consequences for vulnerable Vermonters.

In an e-mail sent to supporters in early December, Peg Sandeen of the Oregon Death With Dignity Political Action Fund described how she had visited Vermont and met with Gov.-elect Peter Shumlin and strategized with lobbyists. Sandeen assured her readers, “Vermont will be the next state with a Death with Dignity law. Every element is in place. Every player has a plan of action. Every commitment has been fulfilled.”

This commitment includes the Oregon-based group’s donation of $100,000. That’s where the money for the ads and lobbyists will come from. This out-of-state organization with a strong ideological agenda is pulling strings and pushing buttons to make Vermont the “first.” No other state legislature has ever passed a doctor-prescribed death law. Vermont is their laboratory, and we are the rats. And like many experiments using rats, the consequence is life or death. In Oregon, the state medical insurance organization has twice told terminally ill patients it would not fund approved, life-extending treatment, because it is too expensive, but would pay for lethal drugs. Do we trust insurers to always put patients first? It hasn’t worked out that way in Oregon.

Like most Vermonters, I do not know exactly what elements are in place, which players have a plan of action, and what commitments have been fulfilled. I do know our Legislature must put the whole needs of the patient first and foremost; that is the only “commitment” that must be “fulfilled.” Insurance abuse is real. Misdiagnosis is real. Family pressure is real. Rare, maybe, but real. All these factors and more can lead to unwanted, unnecessary death if lethal drugs are legalized. I ask my fellow voters to join me in telling legislators that we don’t support any law that risks the lives of terminally ill Vermonters.

Vermonters need to realize that the Oregon based Death With Dignity Action Fund first facilitated donations to help Peter Shumlin become elected Governor of Vermont.

Now the Death With Dignity Action Fund is spending money to pressure the Vermont legislature to support assisted suicide. They realize that Vermont is a small state and it is less expensive to pay for a campaign in Vermont than in a much larger state.

Is the tragic drowning of a disabled toddler in Sydney an indirect consequence of publicity given to the merits of legalised euthanasia?

The story of Maia Comas, the two year old girl with Retts Syndrome who died of drowning in Sydney Australia - December 3, 2007, raises many questions about societal attitudes toward people with disabilities.

The Coroner who investigated the case was unable to decide whether this was an accident or not, but the coroner did state that "the circumstances suggested “great irresponsibility" on the part of her parents."

If Maia Comas did not have Rett Syndrome, would the coroners decision have been different?

An article written by Australian, Michael Cook, examines some of the facts of the case. This is what Cook wrote:

Two months before her death, Maia was diagnosed with Rett syndrome, a disorder that often leaves sufferers with severe physical and intellectual disabilities. Her parents, 36-year-old Pablo Comas and 31-year-old Samantha Razniak were shaken by the news.

Their ramshackle home was in the beachside suburb of Curl Curl -- “two hippies living in a house playing guitar," in Mr Comas’s words. They felt utterly unprepared for the burden of caring for their daughter.

After the tentative diagnosis, they probed Maia’s pediatrician about the legal and medical position of euthanasia for children with incurable but non-terminal conditions. The doctor – who had never heard such a request -- responded “this is not an option under Australian Law and any action causing harm in any way is a criminal act. Any action causing death actively or passively would be considered murder.”

But Ms Razniak was at her wits’ end. She rattled government social workers by telling them: “Do you understand that she will grow into a young woman and have the mind of a 2 to 10 year old. The head, hands and feet all stop growing. I don’t want to see my daughter become a monster, to become ugly… I’d rather her die now than die slowly.”

When she was reassured by social workers that she could get government support, she responded, that the only support she was interested in was euthanasia. “I want to get on with my life and not see all this ugliness – clinics, home disabled people, doctors.”

Mr Comas felt much the same. He once asked a social worker: “Why do they keep children with these disabilities alive? It doesn’t seem fair on the children.”

The social workers were alarmed by the parents’ attitude, but the case seems to have fallen between the cracks. On December 3, 2007, Maia’s visiting grandmother discovered her floating in a unfenced wading pool. Her mother, who was a trained swimming instructor who was working at a childcare centre, was too “freaked out” to revive her. Maia was pronounced dead at a nearby hospital.

The story of Maia Comas reminds me of the research that was done by Dick Sobsey that showed many more parents killed their children with disabilities during the trial and the media promotion of Robert Latimer. Link to Latimer's Lethal Legacy.