Euthanasia for any and no reason in the Netherlands

By Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Radio Netherlands has reported that once again, euthanasia will be debated in late January in the Netherlands lower house. The euthanasia lobby is pushing for euthanasia to be prescribed for any and no reason.

The push to expand the availability of euthanasia has been going on for a long-time. In 2006, I attended the World Federation of Right to Die Societies conference where the then leader of Right to Die NL stated that their goal was to legalize euthanasia for people who are "tired of living."

Recently the euthanasia lobby in the Netherlands has also been pushing for mobile euthanasia teams to deliver death to people with disabilities. Does this mean that death is preferable to living with a disability?

Euthanasia was first accepted in the Netherlands for people who were terminally ill and suffering. Now euthanasia is done for people who are not terminally ill, who are experiencing depression, for newborns with disabilities, and possibly soon for any and no reason.

It should not surprise anyone that the number of euthanasia deaths continue to rise in the Netherlands with a 19% growth in euthanasia deaths in the past year alone.

Once death becomes the answer for one reason, there will soon be many more reasons to prescribe death. The logical conclusion is that once euthanasia becomes accepted, that death will be prescribed for any and no reason.

The answer is to say not to euthanasia.

Assisted Suicide is not legal in Hawaii

An article that published in the Honolulu Star Advertiser once again confirms that assisted suicide is not legal in Hawaii. Compassion & Choices, (C & C) known by Not Dead Yet researcher Stephen Drake as "Conflation and Con Jobs," claimed that an obscure law from 1909 that allows people in Hawaii to use drugs that have not been approved for use in Hawaii, as also allowing people in Hawaii die by suicide assistance.

Senator Josh Green

Deputy Attorney General Heidi M. Rian and Attorney General David Louie responded to a question by Senator Josh Green, the chair of the Senate Health Committee. The response to Senator Green stated:

"We do not believe that (Hawaii Revised Statutes) 453-1 provides authority for a physician to assist with dying. "A physician who provided such assistance could be charged under Hawaii's manslaughter statute."

In response to the contention that the 1909 law allowed doctors to prescribe suicide for their patients, the statement said:

there is nothing in the legislative history that "supports a conclusion that the term includes lethal dosages of medication."

This is not a new strategy for C & C.

Connecticut

C & C also claimed that Connecticut's law that prohibited assisted suicide, did not prohibit "Aid in Dying". This case was based on a Word Game and in June 2010, the Connecticut court clearly decided that "Conflation and Con Jobs" - C & C were trying to fool them and they threw the case out.

C & C claimed, in June 2010, that assisted suicide was legal in Idaho. They stated that their was no specific law that prohibited assisted suicide in Idaho, even though the common law was recognized as prohibiting assisted suicide and assisted suicide was considered to be part of the manslaughter provisions in Idaho. The position of C & C was not only rejected but in 2011, the Idaho legislature overwhelmingly passed a bill to clarify that assisted suicide is a felony in Idaho.

For more information on the Hawaii case go to: Article 1, Article 2.

Massachusetts voters, need to reject Petition 11-12

Stephen Mikochik wrote this letter that was published in The Washington Times yesterday. His letter concerns the language of the Massachusetts assisted suicide Initiative that will be on the Massachusetts ballot this November. The letter states:

Letter To The Editor: Massachusetts voters, reject Petition 11-12

If adopted this November, a ballot initiative in Massachusetts will legalize physician-assisted suicide for patients whose conditions are predicted to produce death within six months. Initiative Petition 11-12 claims to ensure that the patient’s decision to commit suicide is voluntary. That claim, however, is misleading.

The initiative petition requires that two persons witness the patient’s written request for a lethal prescription. One witness, however, can have a financial interest in the patient’s death. That person can be the only witness present when the lethal drug is taken. Thus, an interested heir could pressure the patient, and no one would know because no objective witness is required when the drug is taken. Also, the petition would require the death certificate fraudulently to list the patient’s underlying condition, rather than the lethal drug, as the cause of death.

Initiative Petition 11-12 uses terms like life-ending “medication” and death in a “humane and dignified manner.” But there is nothing medicinal about poison and nothing dignified about the prospects for the abuse the initiative petition would allow. It is a bad law that the voters of Massachusetts should reject decisively.

Stephen L. Mikochik
Professor emeritus
Temple Law School
Philadelphia

Assisted Suicide case in British Columbia - Update

EPC intervened in the Carter case in BC

EPC legal counsel, Hugh Scher, argued the points of our intervention in the Carter case in Vancouver before Justice Smith on December 14, 2011.

The Carter case, which is being promoted by the BC Civil Liberties Association, is attempting to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada through the court. The case started with the Carter family who were arguing that the law infringed on the rights of their mother, Kay Carter, who died by assisted suicide at the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. The case later added Gloria Taylor, who is living with ALS.

EPC argued that prohibiting euthanasia and assisted suicide is necessary to protect all people. We argued that the reasons given by the Supreme Court of Canada, for the Rodriguez decision, are still valid today. We argued that in practice, the concept of choice or autonomy cannot be assured and do not protect people who are dependent on others and we argued that legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide, in any form, will lead to new paths for elder abuse and abuse of vulnerable persons.

The Attorney General of Canada will be making its final submission to Justice Smith on January 13. We have no idea when Justice Smith will release her decision. We hope that she will make the correct decision by refusing to legislate from the bench and therefore not imposing euthanasia and assisted suicide upon Canada.

If Justice Smith refuses to legislate from the Bench and upholds the law, then the BC Civil Liberties Association, who represent the Carter and Taylor plaintiffs, will appeal the case to the BC Court of Appeal. If Justice Smith decides to legislate from the Bench, we will require the Attorney General of Canada to appeal the case to the BC Court of Appeal. In the end this case will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.

You may consider writing a hand-written letter to the AG and to your Member of Parliament. You should ask your MP to urge the AG to do whatever possible to uphold the laws that protect us from euthanasia and assisted suicide. You need to keep your letter simple. Please use the following sample talking points:

As a Canadian, I ask that you do whatever possible to uphold our laws that protect me from Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.

I am concerned that legalizing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide will lead to pressure being placed on people with disabilities. Some deaths may occur without request or consent, as has happened in other jurisdictions.

I am concerned that legalizing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide will lead to new paths for elder abuse which is already a serious social problem in Canada.

Dependent elderly people may die by euthanasia or assisted suicide because of pressure from abusive relationships that they are already experiencing.

Letters would be sent to:                                     Attorney General of Canada

Your MP                                                 Hon. Rob Nicholson

House of Commons                                 House of Commons

Ottawa ON K1A 0A6                             Ottawa ON      K1A 0A6

                                                                           rob.nicholson@parl.gc.ca

Montana Assisted Suicide Seminar - January 28, 2012

Join Us in Great Falls! 

Saturday January 28th! 

Seminar & Reception!

Come to learn and have a great time!

Date:  Saturday, January 28, 2012

Time:  Seminar, 1pm to 4pm; Reception, 4 pm to 5 pm.

Where:  Hilton Garden Inn, 2520 14th St. SW, Great Falls, MT.

Cost:  No charge, donations appreciated!*

RSVP:  Let us know that you're coming! Please e-mail Bradley Williams, at: bradley@montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org. You can also call 406 531 0937 during business hours (9 am to 4:30 pm). We look forward to seeing you, your family and/or your friends!

MC:  Rick Blevins, MD

Dr. Charles Bentz

Charles Bentz, MD. Dr. Bentz is a practicing physician in Oregon where assisted suicide is legal. He is also President of Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation. He will speak on the "Oregon Experience."

Margaret Dore. Ms. Dore is an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. She is also President of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide. She will speak on "Current Law and Why Assisted Suicide is Bad Public Policy"

Montana State Senator Greg Hinkle. Senator Hinkle is from Thompson Falls and represents SD 7. He will be speaking on "Lessons from the Last Legislative Session."

Montana State Senator Jim Shockley.  Senator Shockley is from Victor and represents SD 45. He is an announced candidate for Attorney General of Montana. He will be speaking on the recent hearings before the Medical Examiner Board.

Bradley D. Williams.  Mr. Williams is Coordinator for Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity.  He will be discussing the recent hearings before the Medical Examiner Board

One-sided assisted suicide report released in the UK

Lord Falconer

The Commission on Assisted Dying (Commission) that was chaired by Lord Falconer, a long-time promoter of assisted suicide, released their 400 pages of "ink on paper" calling for the legalization of assisted suicide in the UK. The Commission was sponsored by the Dying in Dignity assisted suicide lobby group and jointly financed by author and pro-assisted suicide activist Terry Pratchett.

Dr Peter Saunders, the campaign director of the Care Not Killing Alliance stated:

"This investigation was unnecessary, biased and lacking in transparency and its report is seriously flawed. It is being spun as a comprehensive, objective and independent review into this complicated issue. It is anything but."

The report was similar to the recent one-sided Royal Society of Canada report that called for the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. The Royal Society of Canada End of Life Decision Making committee, from its inception, was a stacked committee that sought promote a framework for the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

It is interesting that much of the media referred to these reports as "independent expert reports" even though both reports are a desperate attempt by the suicide lobby to gain credibility for the idea of giving physicians the right to be involved with the direct death of their patients. At least Jocelyn Downie was able to hood-wink the Royal Society into paying for her euthanasia report.

I responded when the Royal Society of Canada committee was announced that they could save a lot of money by simply asking me to write the report, in fact, I accurately predicted the recommendations of the Royal Society report before it was released.

The Commission was known to be biased resulting in major groups throughout the UK refusing to present to the Commission, including the British Medical Association.

The Commission report suggested that assisted suicide be legalized in the UK in an "Oregon Model" whereby the person who dies by assisted suicide must be at least 18 years old, , must have a terminal condition that would lead to death within 12 months, must have the request approved by two physicians, and the person must be determined to be of sound mind, and to not be pressured by others.

The fact is that the Commission report would give doctors the right to assist the suicides of their patients in a looser system of "safeguards" that exists in the State of Oregon, and yet Oregon is far from tightly administered.

In Oregon, 57 of 59 assisted suicide deaths in 2010 were facilitated by Campassion & Choices, the assisted suicide lobby group that is equivalent to the Dying in Dignity group in the UK. A 2008 report by researcher Linda Ganzini showed that 26% of people who had requested assisted suicide were depressed and yet none of the people who were part of her study were offered a phychiatric assessment, that is required by law.

In otherwords, patients who are depressed and asking for assisted suicide in Oregon are not being protected by the, so called, safeguards, and yet the Commissions report suggests that this would not happen in the UK with their proposed looser set of safeguards.

Barbara Wagner

The case of Barbara Wagner in 2008 uncovered what occurs in a place where assisted suicide has become accepted. Wagner, who was dependent on the Oregon health care plan, was turned down for cancer treatment but offered assisted suicide. Assisted Suicide in Oregon is supposedly based on the "free choice" of the participants but Wagner was being steered to suicide by the state.

Julia Manning stated in the Daily Mail that her father-in-law was given six months to live and he lived six more years of quality life. She pointed out that the 12 months to live "safeguard" "is giving false certainty of the predictability of death."

Terry Pratchett told Sky News that he believes that the report that he jointly funded into assisted dying does not go far enough. I guess that was Pratchett's way of indicating that he did not influence the writers of the report, but why would he need to influence a Commission that was stacked with leaders from the suicide lobby.

George Pitcher

George Pitcher pointed out in the Daily Mail that some of the Commission members pointed out that their report represented "baby steps". Pitcher reports that Joyce Robbins stated:

'I think we can only go for terminal illness at the moment, so this doen't actually apply to people who are probably about to go into care homes. But, you know, baby steps.'

My only fear is that some people will actually take this report seriously. Some people may actually respect the amount of time it took to put that much "ink on paper."

Euthanasia: Another word for murder.

An interesting article that was written by Harry Wolbert, was printed in the Winnipeg Sun yesterday. Wolbert, a disability leader from the Winnipeg Manitoba region, examines the issue of euthanasia under the lens of how legalizating euthanasia would effect people with disabilities. Wolbert examines the current euthanasia debate in Canada within the context of what is happening in the Netherlands. He also emphasizes the reality that people with disabilities have, throughout history, lived with negative stereotypes and actions, that at times resulted in death for people with disabilities. Great letter Harry.

Euthanasia: Another word for murder 

Euthanasia is once again in the spotlight. 

Harry Wolbert

The Carter case, now before the courts in B.C., seeks to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. It’s a constitutional challenge which seeks to legalize these practices as medical treatment and to be regulated within provincial health-care regulations.

On April 21, 2010, Canada’s parliament soundly defeated Bill C-384, which sought to amend the Criminal Code, allowing the right to die with dignity. It was a bad piece of legislation which, had it passed, would have directly threatened the lives of persons with disabilities.
We won this battle. However, Canada’s right-to-die lobby aren’t giving up that easily.
In November, the Royal Society of Canada released its report on end-of-life decision-making. The report repeats the phrase “life is not worth living.”

In addition, it suggests dropping “terminal illness” as a prerequisite for death by euthanasia or assisted suicide. It says, “There are many individuals whose lives are no longer worth living to them who have not been diagnosed with a terminal illness.”

RIGHT TO KILL
When society defines a human life as “no longer worth living,” then it can justify a right to kill that individual. Advocates of euthanasia are using some of the same language and rhetoric in use when the former eugenics movement was around. 

Persons with disabilities have reason to be concerned. It is a misconception we are somehow “suffering” and in need of state-sanctioned assistance to end our lives. 

Language commonly used by the disabled community has been hijacked. Words such as “choice” and “autonomy” are being redefined by the advocates of euthanasia. It has been said all social engineering is preceded by some form of “verbal engineering, so we need to reclaim our language. 

The Netherlands is often referred to as a nation where euthanasia laws have worked well. However, we’ve learned from recent reports that many euthanasia deaths there go unreported. We have also learned 20% of Dutch general practitioners were willing to euthanize a patient who was “tired of life.” 

WHAT ABOUT CONSENT? 

Recently, the Dutch Medical Association approved euthanasia for people with dementia, Alzheimer’s and loneliness. Whatever happened to euthanasia requiring consent or the person having capacity? The irony of history is during the Second World War, the Netherlands was the only occupied country whose doctors had refused, en masse, to participate in the German euthanasia program. 

Euthanasia is a very emotional issue. It’s one of those issues for which there are no easy answers. Canada’s euthanasia lobby failed to legalize euthanasia through democratic process and are now looking for a sympathetic, activist judge. 

I am opposed to any action or legislation that may serve to further devalue the lives of persons with disabilities. It’s this devaluation of our lives which has often been used to justify acts of violence against us ­ even murder. 

The last thing we need is for more negative stereotypes about persons living with disabilities. And while I’m opposed to the practice of euthanasia, I do believe Canadians need to have a dialogue around this important issue.

No assisted suicide bill has passed the scrutiny of a State legislature.

Diane Coleman, the founding President of the Disability Rights group Not Dead Yet, was published today in Canada's National Post in response to an article by Tom Blackwell concerning the recent poll on assisted suicide. Coleman stated:

No Assisted Suicide bill has passed the scrutiny of a State legislature.

Tom Blackwell’s article reporting that 67% of Canadians poll in favor of assisted suicide is déjà vu all over again for readers in the United States. The superficial and often misleading poll questions on this topic produced similar statistics in a number of U.S. states over the years.

One superficial assumption is that there’s no meaningful distinction between suicide and assisted suicide — most people know that it could tip the scales if your doctor and family members agreed that it was time for you to go.

Another factor is that the phrase “physician-assisted suicide” implies that a trust-worthy doctor is the only assistant. However, the language of assisted suicide laws actually immunizes all potential suicide assistants from any type of liability, not just doctors.

And, finally, there’s a vague sense of comfort that safeguards can ensure that the process is voluntary. But even if the relatively flimsy protections leading up to the lethal prescription are assumed to be ironclad, once the lethal drugs are in ones home, the law does nothing to ensure that they are taken voluntarily.

All in all, a closer look at this complex issue raises so many doubts that only two of our 50 states have legalized the practice by ballot referendum, and no bill has made it through the scrutiny of a state legislature, even after 100 attempts.

Diane Coleman, president/CEO Not Dead Yet, Rochester, N.Y.

What happened in the Netherlands can happen next in Canada

Dr. William Reichel, affiliated scholar, Center for Clinical Bioethics at the Georgetown University School of Medicine, Timonium, Md., had a letter published in Canada's National Post today. I have reprinted his letter.

What happened in the Netherlands can happen next in Canada

I have studied assisted suicide in the Netherlands since 1988. At first there was no law against assisted suicide. When there was a law, doctors were supposed to obtain the patient's consent but they did not, often performing euthanasia when they thought the patient would benefit. The doctor was supposed to get a second opinion from a colleague but often did not. The doctor was supposed to report the assisted suicide to the government but often did not.

What happened to the Netherlands can happen next in Canada.

Are we better off dead than disabled?

The perils of the social devaluation of people include legal assisted suicide and euthanasia

By Rhonda Wiebe

It is not uncommon to hear people without disabilities and people who have recently acquired a disability say they would rather be dead than disabled.

Although politically incorrect, embedded perceptions that life with disability is full of suffering and indignity promote the idea that it's a death sentence. Able-ist social conditioning equates disability with pain, frailty, incapacity, and poor quality of life. It views persons with disabilities as problems that need to be fixed.


The 'problem' of disability

I would argue the "problem" of disability lies more in external social, physical, attitudinal, and architectural barriers.

I am considered legally blind. If you hand me something in 12 point font, I can't read it. You might say I am disabled because I can't see. However, if you give me a document in large print, I no longer have a problem. An external change resolves a biological "shortcoming."

At times I use a wheelchair. I am "disabled" by the environment around me: stairs, curbs with no access cuts, and doors that don't open automatically. However, when changes are made externally, I become self-reliant.

Negative images devaluing persons with disabilities infiltrate literature, movies, news media, and television. We are portrayed, at best, as having lives no one wants, and at worst, as freaks or deviants. Rarely are we depicted as empowered people with much to contribute to the world around us.

Same rights

Unfortunately, many people who acquire a disability internalize able-ist perspectives. They see themselves as being of less value, rather than as people who have needs which, when accommodated, help them enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as every citizen.

Dignity and wellbeing are mistakenly equated with being able-bodied. Conversely, illness or disability is associated with lack of dignity. Dignity, a key component in actions before the courts that seek to legalize euthanasia, is often defined by the notion that something like incontinence indicates a lack of dignity because it is perceived as a loss of autonomy.

Although most people would not choose to be incontinent, toileting needs can be met through the assistance of another person or a disposable incontinence product. (Please note I'm not calling them diapers; infantilizing the people who use them only reduces their dignity.) Somehow needing help to go to the bathroom is considered to have a greater detrimental impact on dignity than relying on other supports.

Many people use eyeglasses. However wearing spectacles doesn't lessen one's dignity or even one's rightful place in the world. The need to don an invisible incontinence product, on the other hand, seems a good reason to encourage someone to end it all.

Permeating politics

Able-ist attitudes permeate our politics. Canada's current immigration policy restricts persons with disabilities from immigrating to our country. It could deny someone like renowned scientist Stephen Hawking an opportunity to immigrate to Canada.

I admire Hawking. He has not succumbed to the idea that because he has ALS he has nothing left to offer. If a man who has made such significant contributions can't "make the cut," what message does that send? It says we don't really belong because we're not able-bodied.

Medical practitioners are not immune from acquiring these negative perceptions.

Years ago I initiated a conversation with an endocrinologist about the possibility of pregnancy and how it would affect a woman with my disabilities. I wanted to have children, but also wanted to be responsible by getting fair and balanced information from an expert.

My doctor's response was something like, "If people like you stopped having children, we could eliminate this disease from the face of the earth within a few generations."

I don't know if he considered that eliminating "the disease" also meant eliminating people like me. For him, the problem was inside me, and following that logic, I was the undesirable component.

The unworthy are at risk

If we are tacitly acknowledged as unworthy, we are at risk. At times of fiscal restraint, we can experience discrimination when medical budgets are limited.

It's very difficult to access information about how health care resources are allocated, but there is much evidence to support the idea that they are determined by measuring our value using subjective criteria like "quality of life."

If medical practitioners don't have the direct experience of living with disability, and if they don't make extraordinary efforts to explore beyond the bio-medical models available in med student curricula, how can doctors ever have anything but an able-ist evaluation of someone's quality of life?

If our quality of life is viewed as being narrowed, we risk having our health options shrink. If our health options are taken away, or never presented in the first place, our very existence is threatened.

It is especially when we are coming to terms with new conditions, changing conditions, or physical and psychological pain that we need to be reminded that we matter, that we are worth something.

Our dignity is inherent

Our dignity is inherent. We have dignity because we are human. Our dignity is framed within the context of our sense of, contribution to, and interaction with our communities, not about what does or doesn't work in our bodies.

If Hawking can add value to our society, we all can. We are only limited by our able-ist imaginations.

If assisted suicide or euthanasia is legalized, it could be devastating for persons with disabilities. Medical practitioners might never question the desire of someone who has acquired a disability to be euthanized, because they wouldn't consider the possibility that the requester is experiencing difficulty adjusting to a difficult change.

Realistically, acquiring a disability is about living with loss, which often requires profound adjustment and supports, but so does losing a child. Do we hand grieving parents a hypodermic of lethal medicine and say, "This must be unbearable; here's a way to end your suffering"?

Suicide prevention

Canadians seem enthusiastic about promoting suicide prevention, but is that only for able-bodied people? When we face the social message that it's better to be dead than disabled, the option of assisted suicide and euthanasia, rather than providing supports to help us live fully, puts our very lives at risk.

Rhonda Wiebe is a disability rights advocate from Winnipeg. She co-chairs the Ending of Life Ethics committee of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and serves on the Board of Directors of Not Dead Yet. She has lived with a disability since she was 13.

Not Dead Yet - Organ Procurement Guidelines, Health Care Decisions and People with Disabilities.

Diane Coleman, the leader of the disability rights group, Not Dead Yet, published an excellent commentary concerning the Proposed guidelines for Organ Procurement in relation to Cardiac death.
The article titled: Organ Procurement Guidelines, Health Care Decisions and People With Disabilities, which I have reprinted below, looks at the process for policy development and explains how these issues directly effect her life and the lives of many people with disabilities. The new policies were developed without the input of the disability community and at least it appears that the Disability community will be considered within future and current policy development. Way to go Diane.

Please read the commentary from Not Dead Yet.

Organ Procurement Guidelines, Health Care Decisions and People with Disabilities.

Less than two months ago, I was introduced to a new policy arena about which I still have much to learn:  the organ procurement and organ sharing system. In the U.S., the federal Department of Health and Human Services contracts with the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) to manage the nation’s organ transplant system.

Among other functions, OPTN/UNOS provide guidelines pertaining to organ procurement practices in hospitals. In March 2011, OPTN/UNOS proposed changes to the practices related to organ donation following cardiac death (“Proposal to Update and Clarify Language in the DCD Model Elements” ["DCD Proposal”]; apologies that the documents are pdf files). The proposed changes explicitly mentioned people with “upper spinal cord injury” and “musculoskeletal or pulmonary disease”, and comments were due June 10. 

Since I have a lifelong neuromuscular disability and increasing respiratory issues over the last decade, I can’t help but view the proposal both professionally and personally. About a year ago, Stephen Drake mentioned that Belgian doctors were bragging about harvesting high quality organs from people like me and other people with disabilities. There are people close to me who need organ transplants, and I respect organ donation. But the Belgian story was a bit unnerving. 

The UNOS listing of “Affected Groups” in the “At-a-Glance” summary of the DCD Proposal does not include organ donors or prospective organ donors, except to the extent that they are included as members of the “general public.” I’m not aware of any disability groups that were alerted to this proposal in time to submit comments. In particular, I’ve confirmed that the very active health care advocates at United Spinal were not aware of it, and I suspect this is likely true of other relevant disability groups.

The proposed changes were scheduled to be voted on by the OPTN/UNOS Board at its November meeting.

On November 8, NDY sent a letter to “request that the comment period be reopened for the Proposal to Update and Clarify Language in the DCD Model Elements in order to enable the development and submission of comments by organizations representing people with spinal cord injuries, brain injuries and neuromuscular disabilities.” Essentially, we argued “Nothing about us without us.”    

Stephen Mikochik, a blind attorney and law professor at Temple University who chairs the National Catholic Partnership on Disability, also submitted a letter urging that the comment period be reopened. He did not mince words in describing the proposed changes as discriminatory and worse:

. . . [B]y identifying patients with upper spinal cord injuries as DCD candidates, requiring solicitation of their organs for transplant, necessarily entailing withdrawal of life-support and their deaths, the proposal singles out a class of persons, disabled under federal civil rights law, for adverse treatment. This constitutes discrimination.

Another goal of the proposed changes is “to maximize the number of donors and transplants by identifying the currently unrealized donor potential through the clarifying and updating of language.” To that end the changes eliminate the requirement that evaluation of patients’ candidacy for DCD occur only after the decision to remove life-support is made. The potential for undue influence this creates is obvious. Those suffering from upper spinal cord injuries often adjust to their conditions over time and, despite their impairment, can lead meaningful lives. Not surprisingly, they and their families are most vulnerable at the onset of the injury and most open to the suggestion of those required to identify “unrealized donor potential” that they can salvage some good through ending their lives and giving their organs to others.

. . . [T]here are virtually no safeguards at all to ensure that the donation decision is voluntary.  It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that such safeguards were thought unnecessary because such patients were considered more valuable when dead.

Mikochik concluded that HHS would not be able to approve changes that would involve discrimination in violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

I’m not aware of any other letters from the disability community, but am gratified to report that, in response to all of the letters it received, UNOS sent an email notifying me and others that it withdrew the proposed changes and plans to reissue them for public comment in the near future. The reissued proposal may incorporate some of the input already submitted, but the previous version can be viewed online, and interested groups can sign up to receive notification of future proposals issued for public comment. It appears to be time to add these issues to the disability agenda. – Diane Coleman

No right to be killed by others

Dr Rene Leiva wrote an excellent letter in response to the article in the National Post yesterday. His letter was published in the National Post today. Please read:


No Right to be Killed by others.

Re: Poll: 67% Support Assisted Suicide, Dec. 30.

I am greatly perplexed when I hear euthanasia proponents talk about a "basic human right to die," when there is no such thing. We are all going to die anyway, so let's please be honest and call it what it is: The right to be killed by somebody else. I am deeply disturbed by people who overlook the failure of the euthanasia experiments in other countries. Why do they coldly dismiss all those hundreds of people who have been euthanized without their consent? Do they consider them collateral damage? Would they call for an absolute right to drive for everybody, even if they knew lots of innocent people would be killed by incompetent drivers? I don't think so.

Canada rightly forbade capital punishment, due to the fact that no system can guarantee that no one will be killed by mistake. We have the freedom to make choices, but those choices should not hinder the safety of others, especially our most vulnerable.

Rene Leiva, palliative care physician, Ottawa.

Time to rethink - rethink euthanasia.

In his article [“Time to rethink euthanasia,” Ottawa Citizen, Dec. 29th ] Marcel Lavoie implies that legalizing euthanasia would stop violent deaths in the elderly, such as the death of Doreen Flann by stabbing at the hands of her husband, Ian.  In many of these deaths, the perpetrator-husband also kills himself for a murder-suicide.

Link to a recent Canadian study on the topic.

In Oregon where assisted-suicide has been legal since 1997, murder-suicide has not been eliminated. Indeed, murder-suicide follows “the national pattern.”

Donna Cohen

Moreover, according to Donna Cohen, an expert on murder-suicide, the typical case involves a depressed, controlling husband who shoots his ill wife:

“The wife does not want to die and is often shot in her sleep. If she was awake at the time, there are usually signs that she tried to defend herself.”

If euthanasia were legal, the wife, not wanting to die, would still be a victim.

Our laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia are in place to protect vulnerable people. Assisted suicide and/or euthanasia should not be legalized in Canada.

[Note: You may be interested in these articles: Don Colburn, "Recent murder-suicides follow the national pattern," The Oregonian, November 17, 2009,  and “Murder-suicides in Elderly Rise: Husbands commit most murder-suicides – without wives’ consent,”]

Assisted suicide is not legal in Hawaii

The group Hawaii against assisted suicide circulated a press release on Wednesday December 21 from the Alliance Defense Fund stating that the Attorney General of Hawaii has confirmed that assisted suicide is not legal in Hawaii.

Compassion & Choices (C & C), formerly known as the Hemlock Society, has claimed that a law dating back to 1909 allowed assisted suicide in Hawaii. The law that they were referring to allowed doctors to prescribe treatments that are not yet approved to people who are "hopeless and beyond recovery." C & C claimed that this meant that doctors could prescribe a lethal dose to assist the suicide of their patients.

David Louie, the Attorney General for Hawaii has confirmed that the 1909 law does not allow assisted suicide.

Hawaii attorney Jim Hochberg confirmed that:

"the history of the law clearly indicates its intent to prohibit prosecution of someone whose untested techniques or materials may be able to save a patient when traditional medical practise could not."

Hochberg explained that:

"This law simply does not give doctors discretian to hasten the death of patients and that no one should believe the recent falsehoods that pro-death proponents have spread about Hawaii law."

Margaret Dore

Margaret Dore, the leader of Choice is an Illusion and an attorney from Seattle Washington wrote an excellent legal analysis debunking the argument by (C & C) titled - Hawaii: Assisted Suicide in not already legal.

This is just another example of how (C & C) will spin the truth. Stephen Drake, the research analyst for the disability rights group Not Dead Yet refers to C & C as "Conflation and Con Jobs."

Read the opinion of the Attorney General here.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition expects that Compassion & Choices will encourage a physician to break the law in order to test their theory concerning the state of the Hawaii law or they will challenge the law in the court.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition makes oral arguments in assisted suicide case.

 EPC Media Release

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is an Intervener in the Carter vs. Attorney General of Canada case that seeks to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.

On December 14, the EPC legal counsel, Hugh Scher, will be presenting our legal arguments before the BC court.

EPC legal counsel, Hugh Scher notes:

“Concerns about safety, security and equality of people with disabilities and seniors will be central to the arguments advanced by EPC before the court, as will concerns about a harmful shift in our cultural ethic that will occur if assisted suicide is legalized.”

EPC – BC chair, Dr Will Johnston states:

“I see elder abuse in my practice, often perpetrated by family members and caregivers. A desire for money or an inheritance is typical. To make it worse, the victims protect the abusers. In one case, an older woman knew that her son was robbing her blind and lied to protect him.” 

“Under current law, abusers take their victims to the bank and to the lawyer for a new will. With legal assisted suicide, the next stop would be the doctor’s office for a lethal prescription. How are we going to detect victimization when we can’t do it now?”

EPC executive director, Alex Schadenberg states:

“The issue was debated last year in parliament and consistent with earlier Senate Committee reports, parliament overwhelmingly defeated Bill C-384, a bill that would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada, by a vote of 228 to 59.

Link to an EPC article on the case.

Link to the EPC Talking Points. 

For further information contact:
Will Johnston, MD, willjohnston@shaw.ca, (604) 220-2042
Alex Schadenberg, info@epcc.ca, (519) 851-1434
Hugh Scher, hughscher1@gmail.com, (416) 816-6115

Link to the online petition campaign to the Attorney General of Canada.

Make a donation or become a member of EPC. 

Disability Rights Group Announces Opposition to Massachusetts Assisted Suicide Initiative

Not Dead Yet circulated information concerning yesterdays press conference by the Massachusetts group - Second Thoughts. Second Thoughts is composed primarily of people with disabilities who have organized to oppose the assisted suicide initiative in Massachusetts. Please read:

Group Announces Opposition to Massachusetts Assisted Suicide Initiative

Boston, MA (PRWEB) December 09, 2011

Suicide predator, William Melchert-Dinkel, is appealing his sentence

Lee Greenberg wrote an extensive article that was published in the Ottawa Citizen on December 5 on the appeal by William Melchert-Dinkel, the Minnesota nurse who was convicted of counselling suicide, in the deaths of Brampton Ontario teen Nadia Kajouji and Mark Drybrough from the UK.

Kajouji was a first-year student at Carlton University in Ottawa. She became deeply depressed and established a suicide pact with Melchert-Dinkel after he contacted her on a suicide chat site under an assumed name.

What is particularly devastating is how Melchert-Dinkel used his relationship to gain some type of personal gratification in the suicide death of Kajouji and Drybrough. You may wish to read the earlier articles about this case that can be found by linking to Nadia Kajouji or Internet Suicide. Please read the following article:

-------------------------------------

Assisted-suicide panel failed to present balanced arguments

Margaret Somerville wrote an article about the Royal Society of Canada one-sided euthanasia lobby report that was published in the Montreal Gazette today. The Royal Society published a report that not only advocated that euthanasia and assisted suicide should be legalized in Canada, they suggested that if the federal government does not change the law, that the provincial prosecutors should simply turn a blind-eye the law and allow a state of lawlessness to occur. Somerville makes some excellent points. Please read:

Improving palliative care in Canada

Improving Palliative Care in Canada

Palliative Care

Two recently released reports emphasize the need for a continued spotlight on palliative care
By Derek Miedema, Researcher, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada


Two recently released reports pay attention to the need for palliative care in Canada. The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada released Achieving Quality Palliative Care in Canada this week. The paper tells the story of palliative care in Canada, through the voices of palliative care heavyweights, Senator Sharon Carstairs (retired) and Dr. Balfour Mount, a Montreal-area oncologist. In a ten-page, easy-to-read format, the report highlights the five Ws of palliative care, stressing that this specialty is in dire need of attention because we have an ageing population. If current levels of palliative care remain the same, we are going to experience decreased access, simply because more people need it.

Similarly, on November 17, 2011, the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate care released a 200-page report. Not to be Forgotten: Care of Vulnerable Canadians examines three aspects of care: Palliative care, suicide prevention, and the prevention of elder abuse. With respect to palliative care, the report thoroughly examines the current situation in our country and makes recommendations for future developments in expertise and delivery. Most importantly, the report states that “palliative care is not only the best model for caring for vulnerable and dying Canadians; it also embodies truths that could be transformative for our whole health care culture.” [1] In other words, current palliative care practice should be adapted to animate disciplines across the entire medical system for the benefit of vulnerable Canadians across the country.

Massachusetts Medical Association overwhelmingly opposes assisted suicide.

Great News.

The Massachusetts Medical Association overwhelmingly voted to re-affirm its position against assisted suicide at there recent meeting. This is a significant decision considering the fact that the suicide lobby has collected signatures to have the issue of assisted suicide placed on the November 2012 ballot.

A media release from the Massachusetts Medical Association today stated:

The Massachusetts Medical Society, the statewide association of physicians with more than 23,000 members, today voted to reaffirm its opposition to physician-assisted suicide, with its House of Delegates voting by a wide margin to maintain a policy the Society has had in effect since 1996.

Opposition to physician-assisted suicide was part of a larger policy statement that includes recognition of patient dignity at the end of life and the physician’s role in caring for terminally-ill patients. The policy was approved by more than 75 percent of the Society’s delegates.

Lynda Young, M.D., president of the Society, said that “Physicians of our Society have clearly declared that physician-assisted suicide is inconsistent with the physician’s role as healer and health care provider. At the same time we recognize the importance of patient dignity and the critical role that physicians have in end-of-life care.”

Dr. Young said the policy goes beyond a single statement of opposition to physician-assisted suicide to include “support for patient dignity and the alleviation of pain and suffering at the end of life.” Additionally, it includes the Society’s commitment to “provide physicians treating terminally-ill patients with the ethical, medical, social, and legal education, training, and resources to enable them to contribute to the comfort and dignity of the patient and the patient’s family.”

The policy was one of several reaffirmed and adopted at the Society’s 2011 Interim Meeting, which brings hundreds of physicians from across the state to examine and consider specific resolutions on public health policy, health care delivery, and organizational administration by the Society’s House of Delegates, its policy-making body. Resolutions adopted by the delegates become policies of the organization.

The Massachusetts Medical Association, which is the medical society in the United States, has made a very wise decision. Doctors should be healers and when healing is not possible, doctors should alleviate pain and suffering, but doctors should not be given the right to cause the death of their patients.

I would like to congratulate John Kelly from the disability rights group, Not Dead Yet, who worked hard to  produce a good hand-out and to arrange transportation so that could speak with the doctors as they attended the meeting.

UN DAY OF CELEBRATION FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES MARRED BY CONFLICT

UN  DAY OF CELEBRATION FOR
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES MARRED BY CONFLICT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - December 1, 2011

As the United Nations celebrates the International Day of People with Disabilities, on December 3, Canadians with disabilities find themselves at the brink of an attack on their fundamental human rights and collective equality, says Toronto lawyer and disability rights advocate Hugh Scher.

In British Columbia, and Quebec, Courts are being asked to remove the prohibitions against assisted suicide and euthanasia, a move that would threaten the lives of people with disabilities in Canada.

As former Chair of the Council of Canadians Human Rights Committee, Scher states:

“These court cases represent a fundamental threat to the lives, security and equality of people with disabilities across Canada, who may be unwilling victims of new death practices in Canada if the Courts defy the express will of Parliament, that overwhelmingly defeated a bill to legalize assisted suicide across party lines last year.”

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Executive Director Alex Schadenberg states:

“The language of the Carter case allows family members to be involved with the death. The Canadian government recognizes elder abuse as a crime that is done by family, friends and care-givers or other person in a situation of power or trust.”

Canadian war veteran and disability rights advocate John Coppard states:

"If the law had allowed it several years ago, I may have requested assistance to suicide.  That would have been the greatest mistake of my life and one that could not have been corrected."

As people with disabilities celebrate accomplishments of greater inclusion, accessibility and integration, there remains much work to do in improving access to society’s most basic institutions and enhancing health care practices, including accessibility to palliative care.  Disability rights advocate Rhonda Wiebe, who co-chairs the Ending of Life Ethics Committee of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities said:

“A discriminatory attitude that suggests that our lives are less than equal represents an affront to our most basic human rights”

For more information please contact:

Alex Schadenberg - 519-439-3348  

Hugh Scher - 416-816-6115

John Coppard - 250-508-3446

Rhonda Wiebe - 204-779-4493