Congress of Union Retirees of Canada conference will consider the legalization of assisted suicide

A supporter of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) contacted us today concerning Resolution No. 28 at the upcoming Congress of Union Retirees of Canada (CURC) conference that is being held in Port Elgin on October 12 - 14, 2011.

If you are a member of CURC, you need to speak to your local representatives immediately and tell them to vote against Resolution No. 28.

RESOLUTION No. 28 - DEATH WITH DIGNITY
[Submitted by the Hamilton, Burlington and Oakville Area Council of CURC]

- CURC support legislation to permit physician-assisted suicide for consenting adults who are terminally ill.
- Because terminally ill individuals should have the right to choose how much suffering they wish to endure.
- Because the major benefactors of prolonging life for the terminally ill are pharmaceutical companies; and
- Because every individual deserves the dignity of choice.

http://unionretiree.ca/wp-content/uploads/convention-2011/resolutions-eng-2011.pdf

CURC is affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress.

Resolution No. 28 sets up a false paradigm. It suggests that unless assisted suicide is legalized that people are forced to suffer, that the pharmaceutical companies are part of a conspiracy to maintain the current law that protects people from assisted suicide and that assisted suicide is a choice that will create dignity for people who are dying.

1. It is possible to provide compassionate care for every Canadians.
2. The pharmaceutical industry has never been supporters of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition or any similar groups. In fact, good care does not necessarily require a pharmaceutical solution.
3. The current law protects vulnerable people from assisted suicide, especially people with disabilities and the dependent elderly.
4. The prevention of Elder Abuse is a government priority. Legalizing assisted suicide creates new avenues for elder abuse.
5. The politics of choice is an illusion. Legalizing assisted suicide does not give an individual any new rights but rather, it gives physicians the right to knowing cause the death of their patients by lethal prescription.

Assisted suicide does not need to be legalized in order to alleviate people's fear.
Instead, CURC should be demanding that all levels of government make the provision of excellent end-of-life care and the care of people with disabilities and chronic conditions, a priority.

New Hampshire Assisted Suicide Conference - Friday Nov 4, 2011

Nancy Elliott, a former three term New Hampshire State Representative, and organizer of Living with Dignity - New Hampshire is organizing a one-day conference on assisted suicide on Friday, November 4, 2011 at the Crown Plaza Hotel in Nashua New Hampshire.

Register here?

The conference speakers include: Diane Coleman and Stephen Drake from Not Dead Yet, Nancy Elliott, Margaret Dore from Choice is an Illusion and Alex Schadenberg from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Nancy Elliott responded to the question as to why she was organizing a New Hampshire assisted suicide conference, she responded this way.

Why All of New England Must Join in the Fight Against Assisted Suicide In Massachusetts.
I am a former three term New Hampshire State Representative. I was a member of the House Judiciary Committee in 2009 and 2010 when we defeated a bill that would have legalized assisted suicide in New Hampshire. I played a key role in the subsequent defeat of a similar bill in 2011. I am now the organizer? of Living with Dignity - New Hampshire, a non-profit opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia.

New Hampshire is now facing a new and ominous threat via the proposed assisted suicide initiative in Massachusetts, which will likely go to the ballot in the November 2012 vote.

The recent death of my husband and the fact that he received treatment in Massachusetts has led me to believe that if we lose the assisted suicide initiative in Massachusetts, it will be the beginning of the end for stopping assisted suicide in the US. What would it have been like for my husband and I, if when he was there, he had been denied desired treatment and offered assisted suicide instead? This has happened in Oregon where assisted suicide has been legal since 1997. The state health plan, a government entity, is now empowered to steer patients to suicide.

The people in the New England states are dependant upon the Massachusetts medical centers for their medical treatment in difficult circumstances.

Many of the leading healthcare institutions and training centers in the US are in Massachusetts. If assisted suicide becomes part of their training program, Massachusetts will export suicide-minded physicians throughout the US.

In fact, my husband was crital 3 times in Massachusetts hospitals over the last 15 years. My grandaughter has had 14 surgeries in Boston Hospitals and many other family members have been in critical conditions in Massachusetts. This is personal. Just because we do not have a vote on the ballot does not mean that we cannot influence those that have power to change this or vote for this.

We must defeat the Massachusetts Initiative that will likely be on the ballot in November 2012. We cannot be complacent and think that - "I don't live in Massachusetts, so it doesn't effect me, or we have others important issues to be concerned about."

What is required is a national response to the Massachusetts initiative.

Register here?

Bradley Williams responds to Coombs Lee

Bradley Williams, the leader of Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living With Dignity, wrote an excellent response to a propaganda article by Barbara Coombs Lee, the President of Compassion & Choices, the former Hemlock Society. Bradley Williams wrote:

Bradley Williams

I was appalled to see Skyler Brownings's uncritical posting of Barbara Coombs Lee's propaganda piece about assisted suicide in Montana. ["Montana leads the way in end-of-life choice"]. Coombs Lee is the President of Denver-based Compassion & Choices, formerly known as the Hemlock Society.

First, to be clear, assisted suicide is not legal in Montana. The Montana Supreme Court Baxter decision merely gave doctors a potential defense to prosecution for homicide. This defense is not guaranteed. Baxter did not address, let alone reverse prior caselaw allowing doctors and others to be sued for causing or failing to prevent a suicide. Montana attorney Greg Jackson, with attorney Matt Bowman, states:

"After Baxter, assisted suicide continues to carry both criminal and civil liability risks for any doctor, institution, or lay person involved."

Second, legalization is a recipe for elder abuse. Legalization would allow heirs and others who will benefit financially from an older person's death to legally pressure and abuse that person to end his or her life. This is contrary to Montana official public policy to prevent elder abuse.

Third, legalization will empower healthcare providers, including the government, to steer individuals to suicide. This has happened in Oregon where assisted suicide is legal. The most well known cases involve Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup. Each wanted treatment. The Oregon Health Plan offered them coverage for suicide instead. See e.g. Susan Donaldson James, "Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon," ABC News, August 6, 2008.

For factual information about assisted suicide, please visit our website at www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org Please sign our petition! Donations are appreciated!

Bradley D. Williams
Coordinator Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity
Hamilton Montana

Hawaii: Assisted Suicide is Not "Already Legal"

Margaret Dore

By Margaret Dore

Kathryn Tucker, Director of Legal Affairs for Compassion & Choices, claims that physician-assisted suicide, which she terms "aid in dying," is already legal in Hawaii.[1] Her claim, based in part on a 1909 statute, fails for the reasons set forth below.

A. Hawaii's Manslaughter Statute Applies
Tucker argues that Hawaii's manslaughter statute, providing that an individual commits manslaughter if "[t]he person intentionally causes another person to commit suicide," does not apply to "aid in dying" because aid in dying is not "suicide."[2] Just last year, in Blick v. Connecticut, Tucker made a similar argument that was summarily rejected by the trial court.[3] The trial judge stated:

"[T]he legislature intended the [manslaughter] statute to apply to physicians who assist a suicide . . ." [4]

B. The 1909 Statute
Tucker's brief states:

"Hawaii law . . . contains a unique provision that gives physicians broad discretion when treating terminally ill patients: '[W]hen a duly licensed physician or osteopathic physician pronounces a person affected with any disease hopeless and beyond recovery and gives a written certificate to that effect to the person affected or the person’s attendant nothing herein shall forbid any person from giving or furnishing any remedial agent or measure when so requested by or on behalf of the affected person.'"[5]

She further states: "Added in 1909, the purpose of this provision was to give terminally ill patients the option to obtain treatment that had not yet been approved by the government."[6]

C. Bills Have Repeatedly Failed
In Hawaii, bills to enact physician-assisted suicide have repeatedly failed and/or been defeated in the Legislature since at least 2002.[7] This fact alone is sufficient to defeat Tucker's claim that the above statute has somehow already legalized assisted suicide. Consider for example, Lawrence v. Lawrence, 105 Wn.App. 683, 687-8, 20 P.3d 972 (2001). The Washington State Court of Appeals held that the "friendly parent concept" was not the law because bills to enact it had been rejected by the legislature. In Hawaii, bills to enact physician-assisted suicide have repeatedly failed and/or been rejected in the legislature. For this reason alone, physician-assisted suicide is not the law of Hawaii.

D. False and "Malarky"
Tucker argues that "aid in dying" should emerge in Hawaii as a practice governed by a developing standard of care due to the influence of Oregon, Washington and Montana.[8] This is similar to an argument she made last year in The Advocate, the official publication of the Idaho State Bar.[9] She claimed that "aid in dying" was already legal in Idaho due to the law of Oregon, Washington and Montana.[10] In The Advocate's next issue, a former Chief Justice and other lawyers denounced her reasoning as "false" and "malarkey."[11]

E. Matters Not Addressed
Tucker's brief does not address address language in the Hawaiian Pain Patient's Bill of Rights, which states:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to: . . . prohibit the discipline or prosecution of a licensed physician for: . . . Causing, or assisting in causing, the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of any individual . . ."[12]

Her brief also fails to address Hawaii case law, which imposes a duty of care to prevent suicide on a defendant with actual custody of a suicidal person.[13] In other words, civil damages can be imposed for failing to prevent a suicide in Hawaii.[14]

* * *
Margaret Dore is President of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposing assisted suicide and euthanasia. She is also an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. For more information, see www.margaretdore.com

* * *
[1] Kathryn Tucker, "End-of-life Law and Policy in Hawaii Aid in Dying," as of September 20, 2011, available at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/tucker-brief_0011.pdf
[2] Tucker, note 1 above, Section II.B. ("Criminal Prohibitions Governing End-of-Life Care").
[3] http://www.choiceillusionconnecticut.org/p/connecticut-2.html, paragraph 3.
[4] Id., paragraph 4.
[5] Tucker, note 1 above, Section II.A. ("Hawaii Law Empowers Patients to Make Autonomous End-of-Life Treatment Decisions")
[6] Id.
[7] Tucker concedes that bills to legalize physician-assisted suicide have been proposed and failed since 2002. See Tucker, note 1 above, second paragraph. Just this year, Senate Bill 803 bill was voted down in Committee, 4 to 0.
[8] Tucker, note 1 above, Sections titled: "Aid in Dying Should be Governed by Standard of Care," "Aid in Dying in Other States" and "Conclusion: Aid in Dying Can and Should Emerge as an End-of-Life Option in Hawaii as a Practice Governed by Standard of Care."
[9] See Kathryn Tucker & Christine Salmi, "Aid in Dying: Law, Geography and Standard of Care in Idaho, 53 The Advocate, Official Publication of the Idaho State Bar, No. 8, 42-45 (2010).
[10] Id .
[11] Hon. Robert E. Bakes et al, Letters to the Editor, 53 The Advocate, Official Publication of the Idaho State Bar, No. 9, 15-17 (2010).
[12] Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 327H-2.
[13] See e.g., Schwenke v. Outrigger Hotels, 122 Hawai'i 389, 392 (2010).
[14] Id.

Link to the original article by Kathryn Tucker.

Link to the original publication of this article at Choice is an Illusion.

"Winning Against Assisted Suicide in Montana"

A conference discussing the opposition to assisted suicide/euthanasia in Montana and what we can do to stop it.

Date: Saturday, October 8, 2011
Where: University of Montana Continuing Education Center, Todd Building Rm 204
Time: 9am – 3pm (with Q & A and discussion)
Registration opens at 8:30am
Lunch (we invite everyone to join us at the campus food court next door for networking!)
RSVP by FRIDAY, September 30 email: bkhafer@gmail.com or call: 406-849-5161
Moderator: David Hafer, DDS, MS, Montana

Speakers:
Senator Greg Hinkle, MT R. Senator, District 7, Thompson Falls, MT Subject: Opposition to Assisted Suicide in Montana and his pivotal role in preventing legalization to date. Senator Hinkle was elected to the Montana Senate in 2008. In the last legislature session, Senator Hinkle authored SB 116 in opposition to Assisted Suicide. He is a former Chair of the Sanders County Planning Board and a former Sanders County Parks Commissioner.

Annie Bukacek, MD, Kalispell, MT Subject: The formation of "Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity: A review of her testimony before the Montana Senate Judiciary Committee, which helped defeat a proposed bill to legalize assisted suicide in Montana.

"Dr. Annie" is an internal medicine doctor with 25 years experience. She owns her own medical practice. In 2010, she and her husband formed Montanans Against Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity. She worked with an informal coalition to help stop legalization of assisted suicide in Montana. That coalition included Senator Hinkle, attorney Margaret Dore and Bradley D. Williams, now Coordianator of Montanans Against Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity

Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA Seattle, WA Subject: The current state of the law in Montana: Why people should be against assisted suicide, why we lost in Washington state, and good and bad arguments against assisted suicide. Margaret Dore is an attorney in Washington State where physician-assisted suicide is legal. She is the President of Choice is an Illusion, a non-profit corporation opposing assisted suicide and euthanasia. She was an amicus curie in Montana’s Baxter case. She has published multiple articles against assisted suicide.

For more information, see http://www.blogger.com/www.ChoiceIllusion.org and http://www.blogger.com/www.margaretdore.com

Bradley Williams, Hamilton, MT
Subject: A citizen's vision and strategy for future discussions regarding Assisted Suicide. Bradley Williams is the present Coordinator of Montanans Against Assisted Suicide and For Living with Dignity. He is a veteran salesperson with 40 years experience, serving professionals and the general public. The catalyst to Mr. Williams' involvement in the assisted-suicide issue was an overreaching 2008 judgment solicited by an out-of-state proponent that opened the door for state-sanctioned suicide in Montana. Until then he thought a citizen's duties were to vote, jury duty and pay taxes. After experiencing the encouragement from our legislators and the general public he is sure that we also have the duty to participate in the legislative process.

For more information, see http://www.blogger.com/www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org

South Australia - Medical Association and Law Society opposes euthanasia bill

Last week, Dr. Peter Sharley, the President of the South Australian Medical Association and Ralph Bonig, the President of The Law Society of South Australia released a joint statement opposing the Steph Key euthanasia bill.

On March 29 I wrote an analysis of the Steph Key euthanasia bill.

The South Australian Medical Association stated:

The AMA(SA) supports appropriate palliative care treatment to prevent the pain and suffering of patients - even if this treatment may hasten death in an unintended way.‘The Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act currently protects doctors
doing this’ states Dr Sharley. This bill is really about doctors ending the lives of patients, in other words providing euthanasia. Not only that, it has a serious lack of protection for patients. There is no proper process, witness, second opinion or required documentation. A doctor could carry out ‘treatment’ which effectively kills the patient with only the word of the doctor as evidence.

It is disturbing that the Bill is being presented as a defence for doctors when we do not see the need for this approach. Doctors are also concerned the Bill if passed will undermine the focus on effective high quality palliative care whilst placing doctors at risk of criminal charges.

Comment on World Suicide Prevention Day by Alison Davis

I found out, only on the day itself that the World Suicide Prevention Day (WSPD) was held on Saturday, September 10, 2011. I feel it is a great pity that information about the Day was not more widely disseminated, since I would have liked to have had the chance to comment on the Day and the literature associated with it, before the event actually happened.

I have read through all the literature associated with the Day, but have been unable to find any mention in it of attempts (if any are made by WHO) to prevent the suicide of disabled/sick/elderly people, who are currently the main targets of campaigns by groups in many countries, including those in Europe, to legalise what is euphemistically called "assisted suicide" or "assisted dying." In plain English, these terms simply mean facilitating the suicide of vulnerable people.

Quebec case is not a precedent for assisted suicide law.

On Monday, Leger Ayotte (69), a Quebec man, was given an unconditional discharge after pleading guilty to a lesser charge of negligent use of a firearm.

Some people have referred to this case as proof that the assisted suicide law is becoming "moot" in Canada, but when reading the facts of the case we learn that Ayotte was probably treated correctly by the court.

The article from postmedia news stated:

The 69-year-old man was arraigned in May 2009 after his wife Suzie Perreault-Ayotte was found shot to death in their home in Trois-Rivieres.

Crown prosecutor Maxime Chevalier indicated the woman was suffering from depression at the time, while the man had just learned he had cancer. He said the Crown was not able to prove Ayotte had the intention to help his wife kill herself and added the couple might have had a suicide pact.

In other words, there is no proof that Ayotte actually broke the assisted suicide law. There needs to be intention and not just circumstance in order to convict a person of assisted suicide.

The issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide are being debated throughout Quebec. The Quebec government established a "Dying with Dignity" commission who are intending to release a report soon. Ginette Leblanc is attempting to launch a legal battle in Quebec to strike down Canada's laws that protect people from assisted suicide.

At the same time, the group Vivre dans la Dignite (Living with Dignity) has successfully built a strong opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide in Quebec.

Assisted Suicide Advocates Pushing Hard To Legalize and Expand Doctor Prescribed Death

The following article by Jennifer Popik, JD, the legal counsel for the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics, is a good synopsis of the current political battle to legalize physician-assisted suicide throughout the United States.

Jennifer's article was originally published on September 15, 2011here. This article is worth reading:
---------------------------------------------------------

While the country and the 50 states are largely focused on the economy, jobs, and budgets, assisted suicide advocates, namely Compassion and Choices, have been hard at work seeking to legalize or expand physician-assisted suicide.

Assisted suicide is currently legal in two states – Oregon and Washington – and may have some legal protection in the state of Montana, because of a court decision. While doctor-prescribed death is legal in only these two Northwest states, assisted suicide advocates have announced they plan on getting a foothold in the Northeast: in Vermont and Massachusetts.

Should they succeed, momentum could leave many other New England states vulnerable.

And it is no accident that advocates of doctor-prescribed death are seeking to further weaken one so-called “safeguard” in Oregon.

Major Push in New England

In Massachusetts, there is a two-front risk of legalization of assisted suicide. On September 7th, the Attorney General’s Office produced a summary for voters and certified a proposal to the ballot. Proponents must now gather and file the signatures of 68,911 registered voters by December 7, 2011.

If they get the requisite number, the proposal would first be sent to the state Legislature before the first Wednesday in May 2012. The Massachusetts Legislature can either pass it directly into law, or do nothing.

If the Legislature does not enact the proposal into law, proponents get a second bite at the poisoned apple. If they can gather an additional 11,485 signatures from registered voters by early July 2012, they can have the measure placed on the November 2012 ballot. The well-funded Compassion and Choices is trying to raise money in an effort to gather the necessary signatures; they have used paid signature-gatherers in the past.

In nearby Vermont, Gov. Pete Shumlin (D) was narrowly elected in 2010. Throughout the gubernatorial campaign, he made his intentions unmistakably clear: he repeatedly promised that he would make it a priority to sign an assisted suicide bill into law.

A bill modeled on Oregon’s law was introduced in the legislature. Despite the fact that powerful forces aligned in favor of passage of doctor-prescribed death, the legislation was not considered, thanks primarily to the resistance of the disability-rights community.

However, after the 2011 legislative session ended, Shumlin renewed his promise to help legalize assisted suicide. He indicated that he will work on it next year. Vermont‘s assisted suicide advocates are no doubt well-funded, and motivated.

Expanding Doctor-Prescribed Death in Oregon

In addition, Compassion and Choices has recently announced that they are launching a lobbying effort in the state of Oregon aimed at removing the state’s already inadequate reporting requirements.

Under current Oregon law, the state produced sparse reports that show such basics as how many were prescribed lethal drugs; if there were complications; and how long they held on to the lethal drugs before the patient took them. The underlying data is not available for the public to view, kept by the Oregon Health Department for one year, and then destroyed.

Opponents of assisted suicide have long sought to highlight that assisted suicide advocates have a broader agenda, one they often reveal. If the reporting requirement is eliminated it would mean that the doctors who prescribe lethal prescriptions, who already face very few consequences for misconduct, would face even less scrutiny.

Compassion and Choices, with a goal of radical “autonomy,” has adopted the strategy of legalizing assisted suicide with so-called “safeguards,” and then work to erode them over time. For one such example, after the court decisions in Montana, Compassion and Choices issued a factsheet for legislators that said, “The Legislature should affirm the Court’s guidelines, and not place obstacles in patients’ way. The Legislature should affirm that physician participation is voluntary, and enact protections from civil liability and professional sanctions for physicians who practice within the court’s guidelines.”

But the court, while setting a few vague boundaries, never actually issued guidelines. Compassion and Choices does not really advocate for guidelines, so much as employ them to give voters and legislators a false sense of security that people will not be abused under these laws.

While assisted suicide is often promoted as a “personal decisions” in the hands of the individual, there has been story after story of the government steering patients to inexpensive suicide drugs. The most well known cases involve Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup, both of whom wanted treatment, but were initially denied, and sent letters reminding them of their right to assisted suicide.

More than this, there are dangerous loopholes in Oregon’s and Washington’s laws. Death certificates are falsified, listing an underlying condition as the cause of death, not suicide. The effect is it can hide the real number of suicides.

Heirs can serve as witnesses to requests. With no witness at the time of death, how can anyone be sure if the person (if they are even personally taking the drugs) is in any position to make decisions with lethal consequences? And the slipover impact should not be missed. Sadly, in 2010, Oregon’s rising suicide rate was a whopping 35% higher than the national average.

In a world where financial concerns and feelings of being a “burden” run rampant, state-sanctioned suicide is the worst kind of message to send. Life at any age is precious, and the true compassionate response would never to be to hand you a lethal prescription.

Writers of editorial need to read more studies

Response to editorial - "The right to die"

The North Shore News states in its editorial on Sept 14, 2011, concerning "The right to die" that:

"Studies of other jurisdictions that allow assisted suicide show no slippery slope to huge numbers of such deaths."

The fact is that studies show that there has been a slippery slope in the Netherlands where euthanasia and assisted suicide were originally allowed for people who were nearing death and suffering and it is now allowed for people with chronic depression and children born with disabilities.

In Belgium a recent study published in the CMAJ (May 2010) found that 32% of all euthanasia deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium were done without request or consent.

Another recent study about Belgium that was published in the BMJ (Oct 2010) found that only 52.8% of the euthanasia deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium were reported.

The writers of this editorial need to read all of the studies.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Mark Pickup responds to the Canadian government concerning euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The following blog post was written by Mark Pickup in response to a request by the federal department of justice for information in relation to the upcoming BCCLA Carter case. The Carter case is an attempt to remove, through the court, the protections in law from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Mark's blog comment has gained international attention and was received a comment by bioethicist Wesley Smith.

This is a reprint of Pickup's original blog comment:
----------------------------------------------------

Firstly, I want to thank you for hearing my concerns about efforts by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association to strike down Canada’s laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia. This memorandum is meant to recap my input during today’s discussion.

Being chronically ill and disabled with degenerative multiple sclerosis (MS) I am deeply concerned about the disastrous impact a successful challenge would have on people such as me.

You posed the question: “How do my concerns about assisted suicide interact with my religious beliefs?” Is the purpose of the question is to determine whether I am able to separate the context of my religious life from dialogue within a secular sphere of legal or public policy discussions? My answer is an unequivocal Yes.

Your question is shrewd and strategic. I am aware that there is a tendency amongst proponents of euthanasia and assisted suicide to try and relegate opposition by Christian citizens to the backwaters of public policy debate. Let me be blunt and clear: It is thinly veiled anti-Christian bigotry intended to silence or nullify views of Christians as irrelevant to public discourse. I utterly reject such tactics and refuse to be conveniently shuffled off to the sidelines. I may be a Christian but I am also a Canadian citizen with responsibilities and rights.

I bring to public discourse decades of advocacy for disability inclusion into the social fabric of Canadian life. My perspective is of someone experienced with community development combined with the perspective of having a progressive disability.

Assisted suicide is intended for people like me. I have a vested interest in where the Carter/Taylor challenge may lead if successful.

My citizenship rights entitle me (and other Canadians with disabilities) to equal protections of the law. The first Legal Right mentioned in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (as well as Article 3 of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights) is the Right to Life. There is no mention of a Right to Death. Human rights must protect life not death. Death does not need protecting; it is an eventuality that will visit everyone regardless of what any law might state.

Canada’s Charter does mention in Section 7 the right not to be deprived of security of the person but it is qualified and not sufficient to override laws on euthanasia or assisted suicide. Why? Because by doing so it will jeopardize “principles of fundamental justice” for present and future vulnerable populations.

THE COMMON GOOD

In the unanimous 1997 U.S. Supreme Court ruling for states right to prohibit assisted suicide, former Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, wrote “An examination of our Nation's history, legal traditions, and practices demonstrates that Anglo-American common law has punished or otherwise disapproved of assisting suicide for over 700 years”.[1] The Hippocratic Oath, dating back thousands of years, forbade euthanasia by physicians. It would take great arrogance and self-centredness to demand that all this change to accommodate me, or any other individual. Nations must nurture the ideal of collective interdependent community. Accepting euthanasia not only works against this ideal, it rejects wisdom of the ages and embarks into dangerous public policy direction and practice.

Acceptance of assisted suicide places personal autonomy as paramount. This must be rejected. Autonomy is diametrically opposed to the concept of community. As John Donne stated in the 17th Century, “No man is an island entire unto itself”.

If I choose assisted suicide it will not affect just me: It will affect my wife, children and grandchildren. It will affect my community by not teaching the importance of inclusion and accommodation of people with terminal, chronic illnesses or severe disabilities. It will affect my physician because I will ask her to cease being a healer and become my executioner or participate in killing me. And in a small but certain way, my assisted suicide would help to coarsen the collective public conscience and further entrench the notion that there is such a thing as lives unworthy of life ― so unworthy that society will end or help to end those lives.

Assisted suicide threatens to turn back the clock of inclusion that disability advocates and their allies fought so hard to gain throughout many decades. Assisted suicide is a cheap and short-sighted compassion that ends in the ultimate exclusion of the tomb.

MEANING AND WORDS

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said
in rather a scornful tone,
“it means just what I choose it
to mean―neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice,
“whether you can make words
mean different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty,
“which is to be master―that’s all.”[2]

The word kill inflames discussion but it is an accurate description of what we are talking about. Euphemisms like “liberation” or “exit” or “gentle landing” are intentionally meant to obscure the harsh reality of assisted suicide and euthanasia. They are not useful to discussion. In such serious matters as life and death we must not sanitize language or change the meaning of language because it confuses important concepts and ideas.

Death with dignity: You will hear euthanasia advocates talk about “a right to death with dignity.” Where is such a right enshrined in law? There is no “right” to death with dignity. Death with dignity is not something that is bestowed upon someone with poison when they are at their lowest point. That is not dignity, it is a profound abandonment. Dying with dignity is a process not an event. It is the natural conclusion of having lived with dignity. It has been my experience that people do not die with any more dignity than they live with.

If Canada is really concerned with dignity at the end of life then put in place a National Palliative Care Strategy to ensure all Canadians have access to state-of-the-art palliative care when needed. Ensure medical schools and nursing programs equip graduates with the skills required to provide 21st Century palliation and pain control.

Virtually all physical pain can be controlled or eliminated. Ottawa palliative care specialist, Dr. John Scott wrote an essay in which he stated:

“The World Health Organization has demonstrated that access to pain-relieving drugs, along with a simple educational program, can achieve relief in the vast majority of patients. Specialists in various parts of the world estimate these basic approaches can control 85 to 98 percent of cases. The remaining cases require more careful attention and the use of multiple drugs and therapies to achieve complete relief.”[3]

These words were written in 1995. How much better has pain management become in the intervening sixteen years?!

This brings me to a fear I have about assisted suicide acceptance. Will it be a disincentive for research into cures and improvements to treatments? After all, why invest millions of dollars into finding cures for diseases like MS or ALS when euthanasia or assisted suicide is so cheap and tidy?

Whenever I have confronted euthanasia advocates with the fact that physical pain relief can be virtually complete, they often switch to the position that they want the ability to decide the time and place of their own death. Alas! The real issue is not pain control rather control. If they can’t control the way their life is going then they want to control their death. Control.

That is hardly a reason to alter generations of societal moral consensus against killing the sick and disabled!

Equality: As ridiculous as it sounds, assisted suicide advocates will actually say that able-bodied people can commit suicide so why should Joe Shmoe be denied the same right just because he is too disabled to commit suicide. This is where clear language and clear thinking are critically important. Just because a healthy man can kill himself does not mean he has a right to kill himself. Society will try to stop him from hurting or killing himself. His loved ones may even intervene and put him in psychiatric care to prevent him from hurting himself. In cities all across Canada there are suicide hot lines meant to help prevent people from taking their own lives and get proper counselling.

Rational Suicide: Now that’s an oxymoron! The instinct to survive is natural. Committing suicide is not. Many people in psychiatric helping professions think that by definition, suicide is irrational.

In the first few years after I was diagnosed with MS, the disease was stripping me from being healthy and able-bodied to chronically sick and disabled; I was in constant danger of sinking beneath the waves of my circumstances and despairing of life. My grief was so profound, my heartache so sharp, my terror so intense – my thinking became clouded. I needed people to lift me up as valuable even when I ceased to value myself. I am so glad there was not a Jack Kevorkian around in the mid-1980s. I might have succumbed at a low point.

Quality of Life: People advocate euthanasia or assisted suicide when quality of life has been deemed to be too low. Whose standard will judge? The treating physician? The family of the sick person? The patient? Euthanasia/assisted suicide advocates usually say the patient decides. The problem is this: Quality of life is a moving target. What gave my life quality at 25 years of age is not what gives my life quality at 58 years of age. At what point do we stop the continuum for quality of life. At 25 years my quality of life revolved around being athletic and physically active with my family and enjoying an upwardly mobile career. After I was diagnosed (at the age of thirty) those things either stopped or were severely hampered.

In my grief, I did not understand that a time would come when love (not physical function) would define my standard for quality of life. In my early thirties, the joy of having grandchildren did not even cross my mind and yet today they are my joie de vivre! Some arbitrary cut-off point for quality of life would have stopped that joy before it was.

THE THREAT OF DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

As was stated earlier, acceptance of assisted suicide and euthanasia will threaten people with disabilities. I fear it will compromise the extent of medical care offered to Canadians with severe disabilities or incurable conditions. In an era when strained provincial health budgets account for the lion’s share of governments’ spending, inexpensive euthanasia can become an attractive alternative to costly and prolonged treatments ― especially when cures are impossible. Many people with severe disabilities or incurable illnesses already feel they are a burden on others; they may see physician prescribed death as a way of freeing their loved ones – particularly as the practice becomes more entrenched.

I fear that easy euthanasia will increase cases deemed as futile care and increase DNR orders. When euthanasia or assisted suicide is readily accepted as a treatment option, will the care or the patient be seen as futile?

Quality of auxiliary hospital care is already dismal in many jurisdictions. Will physician prescribed death improve nursing home care? No. People warehoused in the worst of these miserable institutions may opt for death rather than abandonment. The proper answer is not assisted suicide, rather improvement to auxiliary care that demands to be considered as indispensable to inclusive community life. Inclusion.

Euthanasia or assisted suicide can be so attractive and easy. It is a cheap compassion that requires so little humanity from those who administer or prescribe it. Certain lives will ultimately be deemed as unworthy of life and ended with or without their consent. Guess who they will be? Moi, et les gens comme moi.

Sincerely,
Mark Davis Pickup
(I used my full name because there is another Mark Pickup who is a professor at the University of British Columbia.)


[1] Washington v. Glucksberg, 1997.
[2] Lewis Carroll, ALICES ADVENTURES IN WONDERLAND & THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS (London: Bloomsbury Books, 1994), p. 197.
[3] Dr. John Scott, “FEAR AND FALSE PROMISES: The Challenge of Pain in the Terminally Ill” in EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE: The Current Debate , ed. Ian Gentles (Toronto: Stoddart Books, 1995), p. 96.

Suicide Promotion during Suicide Prevention week - Part 2.

Two days ago, Stephen Drake, the well researched policy analyst from the disability rights group - Not Dead Yet, published an excellent article, concerning suicide promotion that is occurring during suicide prevention week.

Today is the national suicide prevention day.

Yesterday, Stephen Drake published an excellent blog article concerns the response by Wesley Smith to the suicide promotion strategy while adding to his own comments from the other day.

We are reprinting Drake's blog from Yesterday
-------------------------------------------------

Suicide Promotion During Suicide Prevention Week - Blog from Wesley Smith and a little more from Stephen Drake.

Wesley Smith posted his own follow-up to yesterday's post - I discussed how there seems to be an awful lot of news dedicated to the promotion of suicide during the so-called "National Suicide Prevention Week."

It's been obvious to a number of us who've been dealing with these issues that the suicide prevention community has been MIA for years. It's gotten to the point where I doubt that reporters even think - on their own - to call someone from a suicide prevention organization when doing a story on, for example, Final Exit Network (FEN) - the vigilante, assisted suicide cult.

Wesley's been in this fight a long time - somewhat longer than me, in fact. You should read his further thoughts on this particular phenomenon if you're interested in it. And I don't just say that because he's linked to yesterday's post and quoted from it. ;-)


I'll have a bit more to add at the end of this post, but here's the intro to Wesley's post, Invisible Suicide Prevention Week:

When I was practicing law full time from the mid 1970s into the 1980s, there was tremendous on emphasis suicide prevention. Hotlines proliferated, anti suicide billboards were ubiquitous, and a great deal of attention was paid to the issue throughout society.

Then, the assisted suicide movement began arguing that some suicides were good. The corrosive effect of the movement, among other factors, has enervated the suicide prevention movement, to the point that when someone sent me a suicide threat on email several years ago, I couldn’t find a prevention center to help him in his area code!

And now, Suicide Prevention Week has come and almost gone, without making a sound. I realized last night that I wasn't entirely accurate when I said that suicide prevention groups and/or their representatives have been totally absent from this debate.

In June, 2010, a reporter for a San Francisco online news site managed to get reactions from two professionals connected to organizations that seek to prevent and reduce the number of suicides in the US. In that story, the reporter somehow managed to get Lanny Berman, president of the International Association of Suicide Prevention to condemn billboards being put up by FEN across the country that promote suicide:

“This is irresponsible and downright dangerous; it is the equivalent of handing a gun to someone who is suicidal,” wrote Lanny Berman, president of the International Association of Suicide Prevention, in an email. “This message, communicated to thousands of vulnerable individuals, suffering from psychic and or physical pain that is treatable, invites a tragic and final solution to problems that most often can be solved with proper evaluation and treatment.”

“This is irresponsible and downright dangerous; it is the equivalent of handing a gun to someone who is suicidal,” wrote Lanny Berman, president of the International Association of Suicide Prevention, in an email. “This message, communicated to thousands of vulnerable individuals, suffering from psychic and or physical pain that is treatable, invites a tragic and final solution to problems that most often can be solved with proper evaluation and treatment.”

Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12bJV)“This is irresponsible and downright dangerous; it is the equivalent of handing a gun to someone who is suicidal,” wrote Lanny Berman, president of the International Association of Suicide Prevention, in an email. “This message, communicated to thousands of vulnerable individuals, suffering from psychic and or physical pain that is treatable, invites a tragic and final solution to problems that most often can be solved with proper evaluation and treatment.”
A Deputy Director of a San Francisco organization expressed similar sentiments, which you can read by checking the link above.

Don't be cheered by that, though. I was, briefly. To my knowledge, that was the first and last time Lanny Berman ever weighed in on anything assisted suicide proponents have done. And it's the only time in the last few years that any real criticism was voiced in the handful of instances they were included in a story, the message was more like this one, voiced by a psychologist who was - maybe still is - on the board of the Society for the Prevention of Teen Suicide. Here's a quote from here about the suicide promotion billboards from a previous post:

But Springer says she's not opposed to Final Exit's mission, just how they're delivering the message.

"I visited the website and it's populated by elderly folks who are at the end of a very long life and are in pain," she said. "That's a whole different issue to me."
What you just read was a suicide prevention professional throwing elderly people under the bus. But we already knew that.

What you just read was a suicide prevention professional throwing elderly people under the bus. But we already knew that.

Mostly, I want to break the silence of the suicide prevention organizations. But part of me is really concerned that when and if they do break their silence it will be to do what the Ms. Springer above did - throw old, ill and disabled people under the bus.

But if that happens, at least we'll know how little our lives are valued by the so-called mental health community. To me, knowledge is better than guessing. --Stephen Drake
-------------------------------------

Thank you Stephen and Wesley for breaking the silence.

Quebec woman wants to strike down assisted suicide law

Ginette Leblanc, a Quebec woman who lives with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), is challenging Canada's law that protects vulnerable people from assisted suicide.

An article written by Marianne White and published in postmedia news reports that Leblanc, along with her lawyer Rene Duval, intend to bring their case to the Supreme Court of Canada, in the same way as the BC Civil Liberties Association (Carter case) is also challenging our laws that protect people from being directly and intentionally killed.

Leblanc and her lawyer, Duval, intend to challenge through the Quebec court the laws that protect Canadians from assisted suicide in a similar manner as the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) Carter case is attempting to do in BC.

The Leblanc case has not been filed yet, so we do not know how wide the Leblanc case will be, but the BCCLA Carter case is attempting to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide through the court.

Duval, who is representing Leblanc free of charge, is an experienced human rights lawyer and litigator who also represented convicted terrorist Said Namouh believes that a lot has changed since the Supreme Court ruled against Rodriguez in a controversial 5-4 decision.

Duval is working on filing an application on behalf of Leblanc to the Quebec Superior Court to invalidate section 241b of the Criminal Code, which makes assisted suicide illegal.

Duval expects the case to be dismissed, leading to a hearing before the Quebec Court of Appeal and possibly the Supreme Court of Canada. He said:

"I don't expect any court to issue a decision that would contradict Rodriguez. Only the Supreme Court of Canada can re-examine this issue,"

The postmedia news article suggested that if the country's highest court chooses to address the matter again, it is likely the B.C. and Quebec cases will get rolled into one.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is concerned about the fear that Ginette Leblanc has for her future, but with proper care and a supportive community Ginette can have a good and dignified death.

The reality is that the fears of Leblanc do not justify the courts removing protections for vulnerable Canadians from being directly and intentionally killed by their physicians by lethal injection or lethal dose especially when we consider the scourge of elder abuse and the negative societal attitudes towards people with disabilities and the experience of legal euthanasia in the Netherlands and Belgium and the concerns related to assisted suicide in Oregon should ensure that the courts do not impose euthanasia and assisted suicide upon Canada.

Why is there so much suicide promotion during Suicide Prevention Week. Part 1.

Stephen Drake, the excellent policy analyst for the disability rights group, Not Dead Yet published this incredible commentary on September 8, concerning the promotion of assisted suicide during Suicide Prevention Week. He asks very important questions about the direction of Suicide Prevention leaders, but also makes excellent commentary about the direction of the suicide lobby.

This article and the next the other one that he wrote yesterday, that is also excellent. Please read.
--------------------------------------------------

You'd never know it's National Suicide Prevention Week (Sept. 4 - 10), or that Saturday, Sept. 10th is World Suicide Prevention Day. But then again, as I've written before, it's been increasingly clear that the Suicide Prevention Community has washed its hands of old, ill and disabled people - and surrendered at risk individuals in those groups to suicide and euthanasia advocacy groups.

If that seems a little extreme and overblown, you'll have to excuse me. The week has, from my somewhat skewed vantage, been dominated by suicide news - but not by news dealing with prevention.

For example, yesterday Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley certified an initiative petition for the "Death with Dignity Act" (aka "make assisted suicide legal act"). We'll write more about that later, but the certification allows the petitioners to gather signatures; if successful in meeting the quota, the initiative goes before the legislature. If the legislature fails to adopt the measure as legislation, the petitioners need to gather more signatures in order to put the initiative on the 2012 ballot to be decided by voters. (h/t to Margaret Dore)

Yesterday - September 7th - also saw the publication of a new message from Barbara Coombs Lee on the Compassion & Choices/Conflation & Con Jobs blog.

I'm going to translate liberally here, but Ms. Coombs Lee says that after 14 years (while C & C was controlling the information available about the actual practice of assisted suicide in Oregon, spin-doctoring any unfavorable events, making sure that reporters and film makers have access to the shiningest examples of loving families who went through the "death with dignity process," and keeping media away from the less than shining examples), they have been successful in achieving a 77% approval rate for the law in Oregon. And this was in spite of the observation by editors of The Oregonian that:

Oregon's physician-assisted suicide program has not been sufficiently transparent. Essentially, a coterie of insiders run the program, with a handful of doctors and others deciding what the public may know. We're aware of no substantiated abuses, but we'd feel more confident with more sunlight on the program. (Emphasis added.) See this link for a full discussion.

The point, though, of this message is that there is one thing that will be changing in their advocacy from now on - the limited amount of documentation that has been required of physicians under the Oregon law is seen as too burdensome by those professionals. So from now on, advocacy efforts won't be pushing for even the illusion of accountability the previous statute includes. Charming. And predictable. Removing the burden of even token accountability will bring more doctors on board. Coombs Lee is right about that. As I said, I've taken some liberties with my own translation here, so please go ahead and read this fascinating warning shot from Coombs Lee here. (h/t Kathi Hamlon)

That's how my experience with major news during Suicide Prevention Week here in the US has gone.

So, some of you might wonder how things are shaping up for World Suicide Prevention Day...

First, there's the news in the UK that at least 10% of suicides in Britain are linked to terminal or chronic illness and account for over 400 deaths every year, according to this report by the DEMOS think tank in the UK. Accompanying this information is the news that out of 44 people suspected of facilitating the suicide of a friend or family member in the past 18 months, not a single one has been prosecuted in the UK, leading to the conclusion by many that there is an unspoken but real legalization of assisted suicide now in the UK.

Finally, Radio Netherlands reports that the Dutch Physicians Association has expanded the guidelines for "eligibility" when it comes to assisted suicide. From the news report:

After almost a year of discussions, the KNMG has published a position paper which says that social factors and diseases and ailments that are not terminal may also qualify as unbearable and lasting suffering under the Euthanasia Act.

VulnerableAt the moment, there are approximately one million elderly people in the Netherlands with multi-morbidity (two or more long-term diseases or ailments) and that number is expected to rise to 1.5 million in the course of the coming decade. According to the new guidelines, vulnerability (or fragility) refers to health problems, and the ensuing limitations, as well as a concurrent decline in other areas of life such as financial resources, social network and social skills.

As people age, many suffer from a complex array of gradually worsening problems, which can include poor eyesight, deafness, fatigue, difficulty walking and incontinence as well as loss of dignity, status, financial resources, an ever-shrinking social network and loss of social skills. Although this accumulation of ailments and diseases is not life-threatening, they do have a negative impact on the quality of life and make the elderly vulnerable, or fragile. Vulnerability also affects the ability to recover from illnesses and can lead to unbearable and lasting suffering.

In other words, this proposal suggests that elderly people experiencing common risk factors for anyone wanting to commit suicide (decline of financial resources and/or social network, for example) should be eligible for assisted suicide or euthanasia. I call this "culling the herd."

I don't know what's makes me angrier - that all of this assisted suicide advocacy goes on during a period in which suicide prevention is supposed to be promoted...

Or the deadly, consistent and determined silence of the (cough) suicide prevention community when suicide is actively promoted as praiseworthy and deserving of "assistance" for old, ill and disabled people.

Would it be too much to ask to just cancel the whole Suicide Prevention Week/Day thing? Right now, all those events are accomplishing is to highlight just how selectively the whole concept of "prevention" is being applied. --Stephen Drake

Dignity therapy helps dying people find peace.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Recently I wrote an article about the importance of Dignity Therapy, a process of helping people find peace and dignity as people approach the end of their life.

The assisted suicide lobby insists that the feeling of a loss of dignity and purpose is a good reason to die by assisted suicide or euthanasia.

While cleaning up emails I found this excellent article concerning the research by Winnipeg Manitoba psychiatrist Dr. Harvey Chochinov. The article titled: Dignity therapy helps dying find peace was written by Laura Baziuk and printed by the postmedia news in July. The article stated:

Harvey Chochinov

Canadian researchers have come up with a list of questions to help terminally ill people share their memories, hopes and regrets as they look back on their lives.

A new study, published Wednesday, conducted by those researchers in Winnipeg shows that their approach, called dignity therapy, helps terminally ill patients tend to any unfinished business and find peace in their final days.

Dignity therapy asks terminally ill people about their wishes, lessons learned and how they want to be remembered: "What are the most important roles you had in life?" "Are there specific things you want your family to know or remember about you?" "When did you feel most alive?"

The conversations with therapists are recorded and transcribed to create a permanent record, which the person can share with loved ones or leave in their will.

"Dignity therapy really tries to look at what are the sources, what are the things that might cause or undermine dignity toward the end of life," said Harvey Chochinov, lead study author, psychiatry professor at the University of Manitoba and a Canada Research Chair in palliative care.

"Some of the areas we found were, for example, a loss of sense of meaning, a loss of sense of purpose, feeling that one's life wouldn't have made a difference."

In the sessions, people give advice on how to live a happy life, apologize for past mistakes, confess regret at missed opportunities or find a new sense of meaning in what they accomplished in life.

"We've had people who've told us that dignity therapy was the only time they've ever heard a parent say that they loved them or that they felt proud of them," Chochinov said. "(The therapy) is able to offer (a sense of value) in a format that makes this accessible to even the most vulnerable."

Their study, published by The Lancet Oncology and conducted alongside researchers in New York and Australia, randomly assigned 326 terminally ill adults to receive one of three kinds of palliative care.

Patients who received dignity therapy reported more significant improvements in quality of life, spiritual well-being and sense of worth, as opposed to care that provided only physical comfort or empathetic discussions with a nurse.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition believes in the benefits and the importance of the Dignity Therapy model that has been developed by Harvey Chochinov.

Alison Davis - a UK disability activist responds to pro-euthanasia person with a disability

Tony Nicklinson, a paralyzed Englishman lobbying for a so-called ‘right to die’, was interviewed recently by Stephen Sackur for the BBC’s “HardTalk” programme.

Alison Davis, the coordinator of the disability rights group, No Less Human, responds to Mr. Nicklinson’s interview. Alison wrote:

“While the interview purports to let Tony Nicklinson speak for himself, in fact almost all of what he says is lifted from the ill-named “Dignity in Dying” (DiD, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society). For instance he apparently holds the view that as able bodied people can “choose to take their own life” so “a paralyzed person of sound mind [should] have a right to die.” However, there is no “right to suicide” in this country for anyone, disabled or not. In fact, much public money is spent on “suicide prevention programmes” for the non-disabled, though those who run them are eerily silent when asked to comment on assisted suicide for sick/disabled people.

Another argument that he uses, again lifted from DiD, is that he might not want to die “if he had the ‘comfort’ of knowing that suicide was an option.” This argument was widely used by Debbie Purdy, in her campaign to make assisted suicide legal. However, in Mr. Nicklinson’s case it soon transpires that he is not seeking to change the law on assisted suicide, as Mrs. Purdy was. He wants it to be legal for him to be given a lethal injection (euthanasia). This is what DiD originally campaigned for. However, in recent years the group has been careful not to mention this, although undoubtedly it is still their final aim.

Both Mr. Nicklinson and his wife want “strict safeguards,” again along the lines of DiD’s “model” law. Note that lethal injections should be available “in only the most special of cases.” As has been apparent from places where some form of killing sick or disabled adults has been legalized, it has proved impossible to ‘hold the line’ in this way. Once it becomes legal to directly kill an adult (by whatever means, and whatever the disability), the situation quickly deteriorates, and those ‘not quite’ fulfilling the ‘strict criteria’ are found to be ‘worthy’ to qualify for this type of supposed ‘death with dignity’. Then the proverbial slippery slope is greased enough to allow the killing of those unable to ‘choose’ death –e.g., disabled newborns and people with dementia, both of whom qualify for being deliberately and directly killed in The Netherlands.

Interestingly, though, Mr. Nicklinson re-defines what pro euthanasia campaigners say–that going to the ‘Dignitas’ killing facility in Switzerland constitutes ‘death with dignity’. His definition of ‘death with dignity’ is to be killed at home, preferably with the help of his wife, who would give him sedation, followed by an amorphous ‘someone else’ who would give the lethal injection. …

However, from my own personal perspective, what stands out most from this interview is Mr. Nicklinson’s opinion that his situation “causes anguish for pro-life campaigners who could not possibly understand.” One has to assume that he has not the slightest idea of who “pro-life campaigners” are, and what they may have personally experienced.

I cite my own case in complete contradiction of his view. I run No Less Human (NLH), a disability rights group which, amongst other things, campaigns against all forms of euthanasia/assisted suicide. NLH members are either disabled themselves, have a disabled family member, or care in some capacity for disabled people. I have several seriously disabling conditions, including spina bifida/hydrocephalus, chronic obstructive pulmonary (lung) disease, osteoporosis and arthritis. I use a wheelchair full-time. I take morphine regularly, but that doesn’t satisfactorily control the pain. When the pain is at its worst I can’t think, move or speak. I need surgery, but cannot have it, because my lungs are so badly affected there is a high risk that I would die on the operating table. I live with levels of pain which most would find ‘unbearable’. But somehow, with the help of my closest friend and carer, Colin, we manage to find a way through the tough times together.

I notice that the Nicklinsons’ idea of ‘safeguards’ includes ‘a lengthy ‘cooling off’ period’. Again my situation is relevant. Some years ago I wanted to die, a settled wish that lasted over 10 years. I feel confident that wanting to die for 10 years would be sufficiently ‘lengthy’ to satisfy Mr. Nicklinson’s criterion. I seriously attempted to take my own life, and at that time doctors thought I didn’t have long to live. If the Nicklinsons’ campaign had been successful and in place then, I would have chosen death, and would not now be alive. If that had happened, no one would ever have known that the best years of my life lay in the future, despite the fact that my pain and disabilities are much worse now than they were then. Equally, no one would ever have known that the doctors’ prognosis of a very short life expectancy, and of a ‘life not worth living’ were so very wrong.

Jane Nicklinson, Tony’s wife, ends the interview by noting that “all the letter writing and the campaigning … you quite enjoy it, don’t you?” If Mr. Nicklinson still has something to enjoy, albeit campaigning for his own death, doesn’t it rather suggest that, given support and encouragement, he might find that he enjoys other, less morbid, activities even more?”

Dutch doctors support euthanasia for Loneliness.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The new euthanasia position paper by the Dutch Physicians Association (KNMG) opens the door to more reasons for killing people and it states that physicians who are not willing to lethally inject or prescribe a lethal dose for their patients are "ethically" required to refer their patients to a physician who will kill their patient.

The Dutch euthanasia law does not require physicians to euthanize their patients, but the KNMG is urging doctors to always refer their patients to death. This new position may be in response to a recent poll by a Dutch TV program that showed that approximately 1/3 of Dutch physicians were refusing to do euthanasia, 75% stated they were unwilling to euthanize a patient who were not suffering but feared that they may suffer in the future and 80% were unwilling to prescribe a lethal dose or lethally inject a patient who was not dying or suffering but "tired of living."

Radio Netherlands explains that the new KNMG report urges doctors to euthanize their patients who are not terminally ill or necessarily suffering but who experience multiple fragile health conditions that is making life difficult. The Radio Netherlands article states:

Vulnerable

At the moment, there are approximately one million elderly people in the Netherlands with multi-morbidity (two or more long-term diseases or ailments) and that number is expected to rise to 1.5 million in the course of the coming decade. ...

As people age, many suffer from a complex array of gradually worsening problems, which can include poor eyesight, deafness, fatigue, difficulty in walking and incontinence as well as loss of dignity, status, financial resources, an ever-shrinking social network and loss of social skills. Although this accumulation of ailments and diseases is not life-threatening as such, it does have a negative impact on the quality of life and make the elderly vulnerable or fragile. Vulnerability also affects the ability to recover from illnesses and can lead to unbearable and lasting suffering.

In other words, the KNMG is stating that dutch physicians can euthanize a person who is not dying but experiencing conditions that may lead to unbearable and lasting suffering. The dutch physicians are also stating that euthanasia is necessary to reduce the costs associated with the aging population.

The new guideline states that euthanasia for loneliness, depression, disability and dementia are also acceptable. The Radio Netherlands report stated:

The KNMG now says that, if non-medical factors such as income or loneliness are to be taken into consideration, other specialists must be consulted when a patient has requested euthanasia. 

In an interview broadcast on Dutch television, KNMG chair Arie Nieuwenhuijzen Kruseman said weighing up non-medical factors was far from simple:

"It's quite possible that the same constellation of factors would be experienced as unbearable and lasting suffering by one patient but quite tolerable by another. This makes it extremely difficult."

The physicians association says further investigation into non-medical factors is needed and Dr Nieuwenhuijzen Kruseman adds that euthanasia should be allowed even when a patient is not suffering from a terminal disease:

"It doesn't always have to be a physical ailment, it could be the onset of dementia or chronic psychological problems, it's still unbearable and lasting suffering. It doesn't always have to be a terminal disease."

Clearly the expansion of euthanasia and assisted suicide has been constant and deliberate. The decriminalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide in the Netherlands began with the requirement that a person be terminally ill and suffering uncontrolled pain.

Now the Dutch physicians association (KNMG) accepts physicians lethally injecting patients who are living with dementia, chronic conditions, multiple disabilities, mental pain and even "tired of living".

It appears that the KNMG has been lobbied by the euthanasia lobby who have been pressuring the dutch government to allow euthanasia for people who are over the age of 70 and "tired of living." The KNMG appears to be caving-in to the political pressure by the Dutch euthanasia lobby.

What has happened in the Netherlands can and will occur in other jurisdictions, if they legalize euthanasia and/or assisted suicide.

Recently, I commented on the research by Margaret Battin, a long-time euthanasia advocate, that was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics in 2007. Battin stated that their is no proof that a "slippery slope" has occurred in the Netherlands since legalizing euthanasia in 2002. Battin's false research paper is upheld by the suicide lobby as proof that there is no fear of a "slippery slope" when euthanasia is legalized. 

The new euthanasia position paper from the Dutch Physicians Association confirms my conclusion that Battin research paper is false and based on her personal bias.