Minnesota Grand Jury Issues 17 Count Indictment against Final Exit Network and Four of its Members

Stephen Drake &
Diane Coleman

Stephen Drake who is the research analyst for the disability rights group Not Dead Yet has been following the issues related to the Final Exit Network (FEN) for several years. FEN is a group that is oriented to assisting the suicides of people.

Drake quotes from the article in the Baltimore Sun and then comments.

This is what Drake wrote:

From the Baltimore Sun:

HASTINGS, Minn. — A Minnesota grand jury has indicted a national right-to-die group and several members for their actions in the 2007 suicide of a suburban Minneapolis woman, prosecutors announced Monday. 

The 17-count indictment charges the medical director of Final Exit Network, Lawrence Egbert of Baltimore, and three other officials with felony counts of assisting suicide and interference with a death scene, a gross misdemeanor. It also charged the New Jersey-based group in its corporate capacity. 

"This investigation and prosecution is not a politically motivated attack on the right-to-die movement," Dakota County prosecutor James Backstrom said at a news conference. "Rather, it is an effort to bring to justice a corporation and several of its officers and volunteers who we are alleging advised, encouraged or assisted Doreen Dunn in the taking of her own life on May 30, 2007, in violation of Minnesota law."

Here's a breakdown of the Final Exit Network (FEN) members and their alleged roles in Doreen Dunn's death:

The indictment names Egbert, 84; Jerry Dincin, 81, of Highland Park, Ill.; Roberta Massey, 66, of Bear, Del.; and Thomas Goodwin, 65, of Punta Gorda, Fla. Backstrom said Egbert and Dincin traveled to Minnesota to be with Dunn on the day she died, and that they likely dumped the equipment she used to kill herself in a trash bin on their way back to the airport.

The fact that Egbert was allegedly one of the 'exit guides' may bring some new heat and light in this (now) criminal case. As I mentioned last week, Larry Egbert was the subject of an extensive (if not terribly probing) interview published in the Washington Post last January. In the interview, he shared the fact that he 're-used' so-callled 'exit bags,' providing them to 'clients' so they wouldn't have to purchase them. He showed the reporter a large number of them stashed in a closet in his home.

It's essential, IMO, that the prosecutor bring this up at trial. If contrary to claims repeated even now in the current story that FEN 'doesn't provide' the means to commit suicide, Egbert provided the 'Exit Bag,' that is actual material assistance. Further, it could implicate Dincin, since it would be hard to hide the fact that Dunn was using a used 'exit bag' that Egbert brought, rather than one she purchased herself. That would also mean that the organization has been knowingly misrepresenting itself and its practices.

Is that shocking? Not really. When you have a bunch of vigilantes whose primary mission is to facilitate the suicides of total strangers, there really can't be any breach of integrity that's really surprising.  --Stephen Drake

Australian Suicide Prevention hero passes away

Don Ritchie, a navy veteran, spent decades scanning the cliffs and ocean from his home on Watsons Bay. But it wasn't just reminiscing. He lived by a suicide hotspot and over the decades kept watch for people who looked troubled. He talked many of them back from the edge.

An article written by Oliver Moore and published in the Globe and Mail under the title: Australia's suicide 'guardian angel' dies. The article was about the life and the recent death of Richie, the article stated:

"You couldn't just sit here and watch them," Mr. Ritchie said in 2011, when he received a 'local hero' award from the National Australia Day Council. "I mean, I couldn't. So I would go out and try and help them."

The craggy spot where he kept watch - known as the Gap and described in local media as "notorious" - attracts numerous desperate people. There is a fence and posters publicizing help lines, but unconfirmed reports have as many as 50 people committing suicide there annually.

Many who went to the spot in despair, though, walked away after meeting Mr. Ritchie.
"He would often notice people in the landscape, he just had a sensitivity, he could read some people needed help," his daughter, Sue Ritchie Bereny, told Australia's Daily Telegraph.

"He would take the dog for a walk and just quietly check things out. It was often a matter of a kind word and he would bring people back to our place for a cup of tea and breakfast."

Mr. Ritchie, who had no training in suicide prevention or mental illness, was dubbed the Angel of the Gap. He was honoured in 2006 with the Medal of the Order of Australia, the award citing his "service to the community through programs to prevent suicide." Last year he was named Local Hero in the Australian of the year awards.

"Don's story touched the hearts of all Australians and challenged each of us to rethink what it means to be a good neighbour," Tam Johnston, acting CEO of the National Australia Day Council, said on his death.

He is credited officially with 160 interventions over a half-century, but his family believes the number is closer to 500. Others were not receptive to his assistance and some went over the edge with him grabbing futilely at their clothing.

One who died remained graven on his memory. In an article several years ago, he described seeing a man perched on the edge, beyond the fence. He remembered trying to talk with the man, thinking he was making headway, and inviting him back for a cup of tea, or a beer.

"He said 'no' and stepped straight off the side," he told the Sydney Morning Herald. "His hat blew up and I caught it in my hand."

Mr. Ritchie discovered later that the man, 19, was a neighbour who grew up playing with his grandchildren.

"I don't believe people want to die, but living is just too hard," anti-suicide campaigner, Dianne Gaddin, whose daughter Tracy jumped from the Gap, said then. "To me, Don is a guardian angel.''

Mr. Ritchie is reported to have died in hospital on Sunday. His family asked for donations to be made to the Black Dog Institute or to Lifeline.

We live in a society that hails suicide lobby campaigner, Philip Nitschke as a hero, and in the next breath lauds Ritchie as a hero for saving people from suicide. We know that the issue of suicide is rarely about "choice" but rather about helping people at the most difficult time of their lives.

Society needs more people like Don Ritchie.

The Final Exit Network and its leaders are indicted for assisted suicide.

Members of the Final Exit Network, a group that counsels and aids people to commit suicide, were indicted in Minnesota in the assisted suicide death of Doreen Dunn on May 30, 2007. According to an article from CBS news, a Minnesota grand jury has indicted Final Exit Network leaders, Lawrence Egbert, 84; Jerry Dincin, 81; Roberta Massey, 66; and Thomas Goodwin, 65.

This is not the first time that the leaders of the Final Exit Network have been indicted.

John Celmer

In Arizona, Wye Hale-Rowe, a member of the Final Exit Network, pled guilty to facilitation of manslaughter in the Spring 2007 suicide death of Jana Van Voorhis (58).


Several leaders of the Final Exit Network were charged in the assisted suicide death of Georgia resident John Celmer, who was experiencing deep depression after surviving facial cancer. In this case the charges were dropped after the Final Exit Network were successful in getting the Georgia Supreme Court to strike down the law. The Georgia legislature responding by passing a comprehensive prohibition of assisted suicide that Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia recently signed into law.

Stephen Drake

Stephen Drake, the research director for the disability rights group Not Dead Yet has followed the Final Exit Network for several years. He commented last week on the Indictment hearing in Minnesota by stating:


Not all of what the FEN website claims is true. Take this, for example, from the latest article: 

A Final Exit Medical Committee reviews information, and if approved, an “Exit Guide” is assigned who provides detailed information how a person may purchase equipment and take steps to end their own life, according to the website.

“The Network never supplies equipment,” the website states.

That right there - about FEN never supplying equipment.  It's not true.  How do we know?  The overly-modest and zealous Dr. Larry Egbert told us so, in an interview that appeared in the Washington Post in January:

Egbert tells me that years ago he asked someone who was about to “exit” if he could reuse the hood to save future patients the cost of buying a new one. The patient was delighted with the idea, Egbert says. He started asking everyone.

The hood in my bare hands feels slightly slick. So, this one, the one I’m holding, has been used to end someone’s life? I ask. Egbert tells me it has surely been used at least once, and maybe several times, and the same could be said for most of the other 17 hoods in the garbage bag. 

So, Egbert, by his own admission, has provided equipment on a regular basis in his work as an 'exit guide.'  That might seem like a minor point to some in and of itself, but the fact is, there is no way for us - the public - to verify any claim FEN makes.  It's only when someone like Egbert gets to talking and bragging we get to hear some facts that depart from the established script.


A CBS article that was published today stated:

The 17-count indictment charges the medical director of Final Exit Network, Lawrence Egbert of Baltimore, and three other officials with felony counts of assisting suicide and interference with a death scene, a gross misdemeanor. It also charged the New Jersey-based group in its corporate capacity. 

"This investigation and prosecution is not a politically motivated attack on the right-to-die movement," Dakota County prosecutor James Backstrom said at a news conference. "Rather, it is an effort to bring to justice a corporation and several of its officers and volunteers who we are alleging advised, encouraged or assisted Doreen Dunn in the taking of her own life on May 30, 2007, in violation of Minnesota law." 

Officials with First Exit Network have said they acted within the law and within their free speech rights when they counseled Dunn. She was 57 when she committed suicide at her Apple Valley home after suffering through a decade of intense, chronic pain following a medical procedure that went wrong. She died of asphyxia from inhaling helium, which Backstrom said is the method the group generally recommends. 

Minnesota law prohibits aiding, advising or encouraging a suicide, and Backstrom said he's obligated to enforce that. ... 

The group (Final Exit Network) says Minnesota's law is unconstitutional because it violates freedom of speech by preventing it from educating people on how to commit suicide. It also contends on its website that it's careful to avoid crossing the line into assisting suicides. It says volunteers may attend deaths to provide emotional support, but they don't provide the means for members to kill themselves and they don't provide physical assistance in doing so. 

A ruling is expected within the next couple of months on a free-speech challenge to Minnesota's statute in another case. The Minnesota Court of Appeals heard oral arguments last month in the case of an ex-nurse who stalked online suicide chat rooms and was convicted of encouraging two depressed people to kill themselves. 

An autopsy in 2007 concluded Dunn died of coronary artery disease and noted that she had suffered from chronic pain. It did not list her death as a suicide. 

Dakota County and Apple Valley police began investigating her death after the Georgia Bureau of Investigation sent a letter to other law enforcement agencies in 2009 about a criminal case there. Charges against four Final Exit Network members were dismissed when the Georgia Supreme Court ruled in February that the state's ban on suicide assistance ads was an unconstitutional restriction on speech. ... 

None of the four defendants were in custody. Backstrom said they would have to appear in court for arraignment at some point or face extradition. Backstrom said Minnesota sentencing guidelines call for up to a year in jail for the four defendants if convicted on the felony charges.

The charges through grand jury indictment are as follows, according to the statement published by the Apple Valley Patch newspaper:

1. Final Exit Network, Inc.

• Assisting Another To Commit Suicide – a felony
• Assisting Another To Commit Suicide (Aiding or Abetting) – a felony
• Interference With A Death Scene – a gross misdemeanor
• Interference With A Death Scene (Aiding or Abetting) – a gross misdemeanor 

2. Lawrence Deems Egbert, age 84 of Baltimore, MD

• Assisting Another To Commit Suicide – a felony
• Assisting Another To Commit Suicide (Aiding or Abetting) – a felony
• Interference With A Death Scene – a gross misdemeanor
• Interference With A Death Scene (Aiding or Abetting) – a gross misdemeanor 

3. Jerry D. Dincin, age 81 of Highland Park, IL

• Assisting Another To Commit Suicide – a felony
• Assisting Another To Commit Suicide (Aiding or Abetting) – a felony
• Interference With A Death Scene – a gross misdemeanor
• Interference With A Death Scene (Aiding or Abetting) – a gross misdemeanor 

4. Roberta L. Massey, age 66 of Bear, DE

• Assisting Another To Commit Suicide – a felony
• Assisting Another To Commit Suicide (Aiding or Abetting) – a felony
• Interference With A Death Scene (Aiding or Abetting) – a gross misdemeanor

5. Thomas Edmund "Ted" Goodwin, age 65 of Punta Gorda, FL

• Assisting Another To Commit Suicide (Aiding or Abetting) – a felony
• Interference With A Death Scene (Aiding or Abetting) – a gross misdemeanor 

The full grand jury indictment and statement from the Dakota County Attorney's Office are attached.

Read Apple Valley Patch's follow up to this story here.

Wesley Smith: Futile care duty to die may be coming to a hospital near you

Wesley Smith

This article was written by Wesley Smith and originally printed in The Daily Caller Opinion on May 11, 2012.


When a Canadian man named Hassan Rasouli suffered complications after brain surgery, his doctors wanted to pull the plug. But his Muslim family said no. It was against Hassan’s values, and moreover, they believed he showed signs of improvement. In any event, they wanted him to be able to continue to fight for life.


But that didn’t end matters. The doctors claimed that continuing treatment was “futile” because he would never get better. Moreover, they announced they intended to stop all treatment except for comfort care — regardless of the family’s desires or their patient’s personal values — an example of what is known in bioethics as “Futile Care Theory” or “medical futility.”

Rasouli family

The case ended up in court. Justifying their desired imposition on the family, the doctors testified in a written affidavit: “It is as certain as anything ever is in medicine that he will never recover any degree of consciousness,” Wrong. Hassan later woke up and became reactive to the point that he can now give a “thumbs up” when asked how he is doing.


Despite this, the doctors are still conducting tests to determine whether they remain committed to stopping his treatment. Further, they have asked the Canadian Supreme Court to grant physicians the general legal right to refuse wanted life-extending treatment. If they prevail, it will mean that extending life will cease to be considered medically “beneficial” — even when that is what the patient and/or family wants.


Some might snort derisively and think, “Well, that’s Canada with single-payer health care. That’s what happens in socialized systems.”


Not so fast. Futile Care Theory has been pushed quietly by bioethicists in this country for years. Indeed, many, if not most, hospitals have promulgated some form of internal futile care protocol. Not only that, but many states — most notably Texas — legally grant hospitals the statutory right to refuse wanted life-sustaining treatment.


This is how the Texas law, seen as a model by many futilitiarians, works: Under the Texas Health and Safety Code, if the physician disagrees with a patient’s decision to receive treatment, he or she can take it to the hospital bioethics committee. A hearing is convened at which all interested parties explain why they want or don’t want treatment to continue. 


If the committee decides to refuse treatment, it is determinative. Even if the family finds another doctor willing to provide the treatment, it can’t be done in that hospital. At that point, the patient/family has a mere ten days to find another hospital willing to take the patient, after which, according to the statute, “the physician and health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment.”


In practical terms, that’s a death sentence. The economics of medicine have changed from the old fee-for-service days. Today, extended care in ICUs is usually a money loser for hospitals, meaning that families find it almost impossible to find a facility willing to accept the transfer of expensive patients whose care has been declared to be “futile.” There are even reported cases of desperate families looking out of state for a facility willing to provide treatment for a loved one about to be pushed out of the lifeboat by a Texas hospital.


How do bioethicists and doctors justify such an astonishing imposition? Futile Care Theory goes something like this: When a patient reaches a certain stage of illness, age or injury, any further treatment other than comfort care is branded “futile” or “inappropriate,” and withheld or withdrawn, either because doctors deem it burdensome on the patient or too expensive. That the patient may want the treatment because of deeply held values, a desire to live longer or on the unlikely hope of medical improvement is not decisive. Doctors and hospitals have the right to refuse service. So much for patient autonomy.

Worse, these interventions are withdrawn precisely because they work and extend the patient’s life when the doctors disagree with that outcome. Thus, it is really the patient who is being declared futile rather than the treatment.

At this point, several important points need to be made about futile care:

1. Futility is not a medical determination; it is a value judgment. Treatment is refused based on “quality of life” judgmentalism and/or “cost-benefit” analysis.

2. Futility makes patient autonomy a one-way street. For years, we have been told that patients should state in writing what they want or don’t want in the event they become incapacitated. Futile Care Theory makes refusing treatment binding for patients who want to die, but allows doctors/bioethicists the final say over the care of patients who expressed a desire to live.

3. Futility strips from patients and families the power to make medicine’s most important health care decisions and give it to strangers: That’s precisely what is happening in the Rasouli case.

4. Futile Care Theory is only the first step toward a coming duty to die. Think of Futile Care Theory as ad hoc health care rationing. Once Obamacare is up and running, centralized boards will create cost-benefit bureaucratic boards that could systemize Futile Care Theory into mandatory refusals or outright health care rationing based on patients’ quality of life. Indeed, rationing has repeatedly been endorsed by notable publications such as The New England Journal of Medicine and The New York Times.

Please understand, I am not saying that it would never be right to withdraw wanted treatment. Any one of us can conjure a scenario in which imposing increasingly painful and extreme interventions could cross the line into abuse. But these disputes should not be adjudicated behind closed doors in star chamber-like proceedings run by bioethicists who do not share the values of patients and their families, and who work in institutions with a financial stake in the outcomes. Rather, they belong in a court of law, with the right to press access, cross examination, a public record and appeal.

Moreover, if doctors want a patient to die sooner rather than later, they should bear the strong burden of proof in order to prevail. After all, the point of Futile Care Theory is to impose a form of the death penalty. When in doubt, every benefit of doubt belongs to wanted life.

Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism and consults for the Patients Rights Council and the Center for Bioethics and Culture.

Woman who sold suicide kits pleads guilty for failing to file taxes.

Suicide Bag

Sharlotte Hydorn, the 92-year-old woman who sold suicide kits, faces sentencing in San Diego for failing to file federal tax returns. Hydorn sold the kits under the name "GLADD Group." In court, she admitted she made $66,717 in 2010 and paid no taxes on that.

An article from the Associated Press reported:

She pleaded guilty to the tax charge but, under an agreement with prosecutors, she will not be charged in state court with involvement in six suicides. 

Hydorn faces a maximum term of one year in prison when she is sentenced Monday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Bernard Skomal. 

Both the prosecution and defense agree she should be spared prison and sentenced to five years' probation. 

But prosecutors recommend that Hydorn be ordered to pay more than $25,000 in restitution to the IRS, a charge that the defense is asking she also be spared. 

Prosecutors said she took no steps to verify the physical condition, age, identity or mental state of her customers and therefore had no idea whether her kits were being bought by people suffering from depression or by minors acting without the consent of an adult. Court documents say she sold more than 1,300 kits to people across the United States and abroad. Most of them contacted her by mail or phone. 

Hydorn's kits included tubing, material for the hood and a user diagram. A needed helium source was not included. 

Investigators determined that the kits were sold to at least 50 people in San Diego County since 2007 and that four of those people last year used the kits to commit suicide. None was terminally ill, according to investigators.

An article in the Los Angeles Times stated:

As part of the bargain, Hydorn has promised not to sell any more of her kits. 

According to court documents, Hydorn is supported by numerous relatives of the terminally ill who were helped to relieve their suffering. But others denounce her for selling the kits through the mail indiscriminately, including to teenagers and others who were not terminally ill. 

A 19-year-old killed himself with one of Hydorn’s kits, according to court documents. “We lost our child forever,” his parents responded when contacted by federal authorities. “If it wasn’t for this kit, our child would have been alive.”

Nick Klonski

Another death that caused a wide-spread reaction was the death of Oregon resident Nick Klonski (29) who lived with chronic depression and died by suicide after ordering a suicide kit from Hydoorn and the GLADD group. Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber signed a bill into law that prohibits the distribution of suicide kits in Oregon, which is one of two states that has legalized assisted suicide.

It should be noted that the reason so many people knew about the GLADD Group suicide kits is that they were promoted by the listserve and website operated by Derek Humphry, the founder of the Hemlock Society, a group that amalgamated with Compassion & Choices a few years ago.

Whether or not justice has been done. Hydorn will not continue to sell the suicide bags and others have got the message that aiding, encouraging and counseling suicide is a crime that causes the death of vulnerable people.

The Eugenic Philosophy is alive in our Culture

An article by historian Lucetta Scaraffia concerning the translation into Italian  for the first time of the 1920 book by Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche, titled: Allowing the destruction of life unworthy of life. The article entitled: If Life is 'unworthy of being lived.' that was published in the L'Osservatore Romano offers an historical evaluation of the importance of the book and then it concludes that the basic ideology of the book, that is eugenics or in other words, the elimination of people who are genetically inferior or mentally ill, is alive and well in this culture.

Many people wrongly suggest that this book was a result of the Nazi movement in order to minimize the negative reality of the concepts that are promoted in this book. Binding and Hoche published this book in 1920, before the founding of the Nazi movement. We know that the book sold well and the ideology within this book strongly influenced the Nazi movement towards it destructive ideology, but the book is not a Nazi text but rather a text that influenced Nazi thought. In fact, Alfred Hoche rejected the Nazi party.

The book was based on a concept that it was compassionate to kill people who were "suffering" and in turn it would cleanse society to kill people who are genetically inferior.

I have read the English translation of this book several times. This book is proof that modern day social darwinisn, leads to a belief that some human lives are not equal to other human lives, but that killing these people is necessary for the health and welfare of society but also as a means of compassionately "dealing with" people who "live lives unworthy of life."

Peter Singer

People who question the statement that eugenics is alive in well in our society only need to read the writings of philosopher Peter Singer. For the longest time people have written critical comments about Singer's philosophy without recognizing that his philosophical principles have now become the primary philosophy of our time. People trained in philosophical principles need to attack the very foundation of Singer's philosophy.

If you are not yet aware, Singer defines "personhood" in relation to the ability of a human being to have "self awareness." This philosophical principle leads to the approval of euthanasia for: children born with disabilities (Groningen Protocol), people with cognitive disabilities, people with dementia or Alzheimers disease and others. Singer also promotes in his philosophy a concept that society needs to maximize happiness by ensuring the greatest level of happiness for the greatest number of people. Therefore the elimination of suffering is a paramount focus for society. This can only be ultimately achieved by eliminating the sufferer.

A prime example of Peter Singer's philosophy being presented as mainstream philosophical thought is the Royal Society of Canada report: End of Life Decision Making. It is shocking how the one-sided intentionally chosen authors of this report were allowed to publish a philosophical section that would make Singer, Binding and Hoche proud. They even thanked Peter Singer for helping them edit the report.

Further to that, the recent Quebec government Dying with Dignity report justifies its conclusions with references to the fatally flawed Royal Society of Canada report.

The following is the article written by Lucetta Scaraffia as it appeared in the L'Osservatore Romano:

If life is 'unworthy of being lived'

Lucetta Scaraffia

The book by Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche, Die Freigabe der Venrichtung lebensunwerten Lebens(allowing the destruction of life unworthy of living) which came out in Germany in 1920 has at last been translated into Italian (in English it is: Permitting the Destruction of Unworthy Life: Its Extent and Form, translated by W.E. Wright, in Issues in Law and Medicine 1992, 8:231-265). 

I say “at last”, because this is a text that marks a watershed. It has inspired many important reflections that are only partially explained in the introduction on 19th-century history – very concentrated at the legal level – by the two editors, Ernesto De Cristofaro and Carlo Saletti. 

It reveals, in fact, that as well as the good fortune enjoyed in Germany in the first half of the 20th century – at the time of the rise of Nazism the definition of euthanasia in the well known Brockhaus Encyclopedia was inspired by their work and quoted them – reflection on eugenics, taken to its extremes, was widespread and was shared even before the Nazis came to power thanks to learned academics which the Nazis were not. Binding, a jurist who died in 1920 and Hoche, a psychiatrist and a pupil of Ernst Haeckel, the scholar who brought Darwinian evolutionism to Germany – even resigned from the university when the Nazis came to power. Therefore, although the Nazis were later to make great use of this book, spreading the basic opinions found in it, it treated ideas that had germinated in a previous culture: eugenic Darwinism, very widespread in Europe in the first half of the 19th century. 

The book may be interpreted in two ways: as an irremediably outmoded text linked to the Nazi ideology, if the accent is put on the theme – developed especially by Binding – of the power of the State over human lives. The idea of the German people, in fact – conceived as an ethnologically homogeneous unit constituted by strong individuals in good health – was raised to a powerful body to which the interest of every individual life must be subordinate. Yet, it is a very topical text; in the essays of the two authors the excessive power of the State over the individual, present without any doubt, constitutes solely one aspect – now obsolete – in the reasoning. In the reasons used to justify – indeed, to express the hope for – the elimination of people seriously ill or affected by psychological ailments we rediscover reasoning and words that are still in use today among the supporters of euthanasia or of the selection of foetuses. 

Binding and Hoche, in fact, maintain that life cannot be considered life in the full sense of those who, because of diseases, are exposed to a painful and hopeless agony, or the life of incurable idiots whose existence drags with no purpose or usefulness, imposing on the community a heavy and pointless burden. With regard to these people, the two scholars invented a new definition which was to enjoy great success even after the defeat of Nazism: “lives unworthy of being lived”. A definition which paved the way to the elimination of the sick and the unfit, permitting these homicides to be justified with a morally appreciable motivation: they in fact spoke of “charitable death” (Gnadentod). These are the same words that recur today recur in the writings of many contemporary bioethicists, and of many politicians who support legislative proposals of a euthanasic type. As the editors write in the introduction, “the notion of life as a good that deserves protection is henceforth cast off from the anchor of any metaphysical postulation, any doctrine of natural law, and is led towards a semantics of concreteness and immanence: life has value as long as it procures pleasure and is free from pain”. We therefore see that this book, precisely because of its grimly up to date characters, must strongly embarrass those who champion euthanasia in the belief that it has nothing to do with Nazism. 

Hoche also proves to be a representative of the scientistic attitude, still alive today, which holds that science is never wrong and is therefore as deserving of faith as a dogma. Indeed,  in proposing the elimination of the mentally ill, he holds that the medical science of the time is perfectly able to establish, without any margin of error, whether or not a psychologically sick person is incurable. 

Contempt for imperfect human life, over estimation of the abilities of science are two attitudes that are still firmly present in our time, to show that eugenics is still alive and has not been wiped out together with  the Nazi past. And this is also because people only partially identified with the latter. As the book of Binding and Hoche proves.
                                                                                             Lucetta Scaraffia

Ventilator case in the UK is not about euthanasia or assisted suicide. It is about the right to refuse treatment.

The case of XB in the UK, a case of a man with motor neuron disease who appears to want to have his respirator withdrawn, is not a "right to die" case, it does not extend the right to withdraw treatment and it does not lead to the acceptance of euthanasia or assisted suicide in the UK.

The question was whether or not the living will, that his wife wrote on his behalf, was valid. UK law acknowledges the right to refuse Life-Sustaining Treatment.

Justice Theis decided that a living will that the wife of a man known as XB supposedly agreed to, was a valid living will.

An article written by Steve Doughty and published in the Mail online stated:

The court heard that during 2010 and 2011 he discussed what life-sustaining treatment – artificial ventilation, or artificial nutrition, the provision of food and water by tube – he should receive in future. 

He had, the court was told, indicated that he would wish the treatment to be withdrawn. In November last year the man’s wife downloaded a living will form from the internet. Her husband consented to the advance decision by blinking to his wife and the witnesses who included a doctor, a social worker and a carer. 

Another carer, however, raised concerns over whether the father had really ‘communicated his agreement’. Under the Mental Capacity Act, living wills are supposed to be written. However, the documents are still recognised if the individual concerned indicates their decision in front of witnesses, and allows somebody to sign on their behalf in front of witnesses. 

Mrs Justice Theis said it had been established that the carer who raised concerns in the XB case had not been present when his advance decision was agreed. However she said it was important that advance decisions were prepared with clarity and said health authorities should investigate concerns urgently.

Therefore the issue was not about whether XB had the right to have the ventilator withdrawn and the issue was not about whether or not XB has a "right to die" but the issue concerned the validity of the living will that was written by the wife of XB and approved by XB through a series of blinks.

The right to refuse medical treatment is not the same as giving a person a lethal dose to intentionally cause their death.

We need to be careful not to compare issues of withdrawing life sustaining medical treatment with euthanasia, assisted suicide or a "right to die."

The court needs to protect people who are highly dependent on others. We believe that cases of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment or care should be treated with great caution because if the person is being controlled by others, the outcome may be lethal.

This is why the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition distributes the Life-Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care.

The question remains, did the decision by Justice Theis put XB, and other vulnerable people, into a position where they will be more easily abused by family members or friends. Living wills documents can result in the discrimination of people with disabilities or people with progressive chronic conditions by family members.

EPC is also concerned about how the decision by Justice Theis may lead to more people, who are not otherwise dying, being dehydrated to death or being denied basic care, based on too low a standard for writing living will or power of attorney documents.

Alex Schadenberg debates Assisted Suicide in Saskatoon

Alex Schadenberg

The following article was written by Lana Haight and published in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix reporting on the debate between Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Wanda Morris from Dying with Dignity on May 3, 2012 at the Frances Morrison Public Library in Saskatoon. The article is short but accurate.

Speakers Debate Assisted Suicide 

The issues in a British Columbia court case over doctor-assisted suicide made their way to a Saskatoon lecture hall Thursday night. 

"It's a really timely issue," said George Williamson, advocacy officer with the Saskatoon branch of the Centre for Inquiry. 

The organization sponsored a debate at Frances Morrison Public Library between Wanda Morris, the executive director of Dying with Dignity Canada, and Alex Schadenberg, the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. 

The B.C. Supreme Court is deliberating over a case that includes a woman with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or Lou Gehrig's disease, who wants to be able to decide when to end her life with the assistance of a doctor. While the court is expected to release its judgment later this spring, the decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, say Morris and Schadenberg. 

For Morris, the issue comes down to choice and compassion. 

"Choice, independence, autonomy is the fundamental cornerstone of modern medicine. In a situation where someone is grievously ill at end of life, we think they should have the right, the choice, to end their suffering with assistance, if they choose, (and) of course with safeguards in place to make sure we protect the weak and vulnerable," said Morris in an interview before the debate. 

But Schadenberg says it's bad public policy to legalize assisted suicide. 

"We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and we are all equal under the law. If assisted suicide is available to one group in Canada, it will be available to all groups in Canada," he said in an interview before the debate. 

"The (current) law is clearly designed to protect vulnerable people. Suicide is not illegal, but assisting somebody in suicide is illegal, and the idea is clear about protecting vulnerable people. It's important that we uphold these protections." 

He says changing the law to allow assisted suicide protects the one doing the assisting, not the one being assisted. 

Euthanasia, where someone administers a lethal substance to bring about death, or assisted suicide, where someone provides that substance for the individual to administer themselves, is available in five jurisdictions worldwide: Oregon, Washington, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. 

Both speakers looked at cases from these jurisdictions to support their positions. Morris said the laws are working in other places whereas Schadenberg said the laws weren't working. 

About 80 people participated in the debate, which ended with a question-and-answer session. 

lhaight@thestarphoenix.com

This is a youtube link to the debate between Margaret Dore, Choice is an Illusion, and Wanda Morris, Dying with Dignity a couple of weeks before the Saskatoon debate.  Youtube link.

Georgia's Governor signs into law bill that prohibits assisted suicide.

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed Bill HB 1114, a bill that effectively prohibits assisted suicide, into law.

Governor Deal signed the bill even after being deluged by Compassion & Choices to reject the bill. Compassion & Choices, the Colorado based assisted suicide lobby group, falsely claimed that Bill HB 1114 would deny people effective choices at the end of life.

This bill will effectively protect people in Georgia from assisted suicide, was sponsored by Rep Ed Setzler in response to a decision by the Georgia Supreme Court to strike down a previous law that prevented the advertising and promotion of suicide.

John Celmer

Susan Celmer, the widow of John Celmer who died by assisted suicide at the urging of the Final Exit Network, testified in favour of HB 1114 during the committee hearings. She told the lawmakers that:

"her husband John could be living a productive life if it wasn't cut short. She testified this week before the Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, saying her husband was on powerful medications that prevented him from making a rational decision about ending his life."

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is facing an assisted suicide Initiative on the November 2012 ballot.

Recently Vermont rejected a bill to legalize assisted suicide. Georgia passed this bill to protect its citizens from assisted suicide.

Massachusetts needs protect its citizens by rejecting the Assisted Suicide Initiative.

Assisted Suicide is legal in the states of Oregon and Washington.

New Zealand Medical Association states: Euthanasia is unethical

The chair of the New Zealand Medical Association (NZMA), Paul Ockelford stated in an article written by Jen de Montalk that was published in the nzdoctor.co.nz that:

"Even if the law changed, euthanasia is unethical and cannot be condoned by the NZMA as a professional body."

Ockelford's comments were made only days after Sean Davidson, a South African based scientist, completed a home detention sentence for his part in causing his mother's death in New Zealand and in relation to a debate on the topic that drew an audience of 300 people.

Ockelford maintains that NZMA opposition to euthanasia is not based on the law, but rather on ethics. He stated:

"We would be absolutely opposed as a professional body, even if the law changed,"

Both the national and World Medical Associations are clear, euthanasia is unethical.

Ockelford then stated:

If the NZMA condoned doctors taking a life, would we teach it at medical school? Would we have a course that teaches students to kill? And the ethical considerations do not stop there. Where should you put the line in the sand?

The NZMA code of ethics states:

"Doctors should bear in mind always the obligation of preserving life wherever possible and justifiable, while allowing death to occur with dignity and comfort. In such inevitable terminal situations, treatment applied with the primary aim of relieving patient distress is ethically acceptable, even when it may have the secondary effect of shortening life."

A bill to legalize euthanasia was recently introduced in the New Zealand legislature by Labour MP Maryan Street.

Alex Schadenberg will be speaking at a conference in New Zealand on June 30, 2012.

Massachusetts should follow the lead of Vermont by defeating assisted suicide Initiative

Massachusetts citizens will be voting on an Initiative to legalize assisted suicide on the November 2012 ballot. Opponents of the Initiative are urging the voters in Massachusetts to reject this proposal, in the same way as the Vermont legislature has consistently rejected attempts to legalize assisted suicide.

True Dignity Vermont, among others, has successfully defeated attempts to legalize assisted suicide in their state over and over again. This Spring the assisted suicide bill was defeated in the Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee and then it was re-introduced through the back-door linked to a Tanning Bed regulation bill resulting in it being defeated again by a vote of 18 to 11. In fact, legislation attempts to legalize assisted suicide have been introduced, debated and defeated on several occasions over the past few years in Vermont even though Governor Peter Shumlin has promised to legalize assisted suicide.

Kristian Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute stated to the Catholic News Service:

"We're obviously elated that the Senate in Vermont did the right thing, not only to defeat this onerous bill but also to defeat the political shenanigans that were going on to try to get this bill passed. The whole thing was politics at its worst,"

Second Thoughts

Polling indicates that it will be difficult to defeat the assisted suicide Initiative in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In March, Public Policy Polling released results that showed 43 percent of Massachusetts voters are in favor of assisted suicide, while 37 percent are opposed. The polling indicated that younger people were more likely to support assisted suicide.

Second Thoughts, a disability rights group that opposes assisted suicide, is organizing a strong campaign against assisted suicide in Massachusetts.

Second Thoughts is organizing a educational and organizational meeting on Saturday, May 19 from 2:00 - 4:30 pm at the Cambridge Senior Center in the main floor ballroom (806 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge MA).

The Second Thoughts website effectively explains why they oppose assisted suicide.

What the Quebec government Dying with Dignity report actually says.

Vivre dans la Dignité (Living with Dignity), a grassroots organization in Quebec that exists to promote palliative care and prevent the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide, has published a summary of the Quebec government Dying with Dignity report (the report). The report calls for improving palliative care and legalizing euthanasia.

The report was published on March 22, 2012 in French. The English version will be available in May. The report made 24 recommendations. The first 12 focused on recommendations for improving palliative and end-of-life care while the final 12 recommendations focused on the legalization of euthanasia.

The twelve page summary that was published by Vivre dans la Dignité provides the recommendations from the report and it summarizes the sections of the report.

The report advocates for euthanasia in spite of the fact that the majority of the presentations to the Dying with Dignity committee opposed the legalization of euthanasia. A report published by Vivre dans la Dignité showed that of the 427 presentations before the government committee, only 142 supported the legalization of euthanasia, 7 were somewhat in favour, while 8 were only in favour of assisted suicide, 220 opposed legalizing euthanasia, 34 were somewhat against euthanasia while 16 presented an unclear position.

The report advocates for the improvement of palliative care and establishes four goals to accomplish this end. The four goals were:

1. The Right to refuse or withdraw treatment.
The committee recognized the right of competent adults to refuse treatments or to request treatments be withdrawn, even if death is likely to follow. The report states that there is confusion on this topic because some people consider the withdrawal or refusal of treatment as a form of euthanasia. The report recommends that awareness by the public and caregivers concerning the right to refuse or withdraw treatment be increased.

Note: One of the groups that has created confusion concerning the right to refuse treatment is the Québec College of Physicians. Yves Robert, secretary of the College told the committee in February 2010 that:

"Québec is the only jurisdiction in Canada where patients can refuse medical treatment, which can lead to death.

This statement was false, every Canadian has the right to refuse treatment or have treatment withdrawn. What is interesting is that Québec is the only province that has not legislated advanced directives.

2. Development of Palliative Care.
* The Québec Department of Health and Social Services adopted a policy on palliative care at the end of life in 2004. This policy has yet to be implemented. The report states that this policy must be implemented quickly
* The majority of people wish to die at home. The report states that the development of palliative care in a home environment is an absolute priority.
* The report states that the training of health care professionals in palliative care must be improved.
* The report states that palliative care must be explicitly mentioned in the Law on Health and Social Services and health care institutions must be obligated to organize and provide palliative care for their patients.

3. Framework for Palliative Sedation
* The report states that there is significant divergence related to the use of palliative sedation and its ethical implications.
* It states that some people consider palliative sedation to be very close to euthanasia.
* The report states that a rigorous framework, including a practice guide and ethical norms must be provided for palliative sedation wherever it is offered.

Note: Palliative sedation when done properly, is not euthanasia. Palliative sedation can be abused, but the proper use of palliative sedation is rarely needed but at times necessary.

4. A Legal Recognition of Advanced Directives and promoting end-of-life care planning.
* The report states that Advanced Directives need to be recognized in the Québec Civil Code.
* The report is suggesting that communication needs to occur to determine the wishes of people at the end-of-life. This is socially contentious, especially in a society, like Québec, that is facing financial problems.

Note: Advanced directives should be established in Québec, in a similar way to Ontario, nonetheless, end-of-life care planning needs to be done without pressure being exerted on individuals.

Medical Aid in Dying:
The Second half of the report focuses on legalizing euthanasia, but not assisted suicide. The report emphasizes euthanasia as an option for exceptional cases. But when analyzing the the recommendations it is clear that the term "exceptional cases" is to promote the recommendations and does not reflect reality.

The report is promoting euthanasia based on providing another option for people who are suffering. They state that euthanasia conforms to the values of "compassion" and "solidarity."

The report suggests that allowing euthanasia will bring serenity to persons who are afraid of suffering because these people will know that euthanasia is an option.

The report states that Québec society has distanced itself from ideological or religious beliefs and has embraced the values of individual freedom, autonomy, and the integrity and inviolability of the person. They suggest that current Québec values are compatible with euthanasia.

Note: It is interesting how they can philosophically suggest that euthanasia upholds the values of integrity and the inviolability of the person when the act of euthanasia ends the life of the person.

The report suggests that since modern medicine can delay death for weeks, months or even years that this has led to more painful long-term conditions. The report compares the values of palliative care - that being the treatment of symptoms without prolonging life as being compatible with euthanasia.

Note: Not only is palliative care not compatible with euthanasia but recently the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians came out against the Québec Dying with Dignity recommendations to allow euthanasia and they specifically condemned the notion that palliative care is compatible with euthanasia.

The report then suggests that because patients must freely consent to medical treatment and because the Québec Civil already recognizes the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment therefore allowing euthanasia is an evolution and not a revolution.

Note: To withhold or withdraw medical treatment is not a form of euthanasia or assisted suicide. The report is deliberately confusing the issues.


The report states that in the Netherlands and Belgium abuses have not occurred, therefore they claim that it is possible to avoid abuses through the application of "strict safeguards."

Note: When I met with the Québec government Dying with Dignity commission I specifically gave them all of the pertinent studies related to the abuses the are occurring in the Netherlands and Belgium. During the media interviews, the chair of commission stated Jocelyn Downie, helped them with the report. Downie, a long-time euthanasia advocate was also credited with assembling the Royal Society of Canada Ending of Life Decision Making Committee and instrumental in producing its one-sided report.

The claim that no abuses have occurred in the Netherlands and Belgium is a lie. Read my commentary.
Read my commentary about the false study by Margaret Battin.

The claim that abuses can be avoided through "strict safeguards" assumes that they are proposing strict safeguards. Safeguards do not protect people, they protect doctors but further the report is not proposing "strict safeguards." There is no definition of terminal illness and no limit based on terminal illness, the definition of suffering is subjective, euthanasia applies to people with psychological suffering, it can be done to someone who is incompetent, etc (no real safeguards, only protections for doctors).

The report then claimed that there have been no abuses connected to the withholding and withdrawal of medical treatment and suggested that the there would be no abuses connected to euthanasia.

Note: Once again, withholding and withdrawing medical treatment is not euthanasia. At the same time, considering the cases in Ontario that are currently being litigated, it is unlikely that there has been no abuses related to the withholding and withdrawing of medical treatment in Québec, but rather it is likely that due to the cost of litigation, there have been no cases that have gone to court in Québec.

Recommendations for approving euthanasia in Quebec

The report recommends that euthanasia be a part of the continuum of end-of-life care, that it be associated with the relief of suffering and that it be based on the autonomy of the person.

Note 1: This recommendation is very similar to the model in Belgium where euthanasia is facilitated and paid for through the palliative care system.

Note 2: Recently the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians stated that they oppose euthanasia and they will not participate in euthanasia.

The report states that the rules for approving euthanasia would be based on the following:
* The person is a resident of Québec (according to the Law on Health Insurance).


Note: According to the Quebec government official website, a person qualifies as a resident of Québec under the health insurance plan, after residing in Québec for three months unless they come from another part of Canada or they come from Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal and Sweden. In other words, this recommendation will not protect Québec from euthanasia tourism.

* The person is an adult with the legal capacity to consent to treatment.

* The person requests medical aid in dying (euthanasia) in a free and informed manner.

Note 1: This is a serious question, is it possible to ensure that everyone who requests euthanasia does so in a free and informed manner? When considering issues related to depression or "feelings of hopelessness" and considering the prevalence of elder abuse in our culture, is it ever possible to ensure that this "safeguard" is not abused?

Note 2: The last definition of who qualifies for euthanasia includes people who are living with psychological suffering. Is it possible to ensure people who live with psychological pain are capable of freely consenting?

* The person suffers from a grave and incurable illness.

Note: This definition does not state that the person must be terminally ill, rather this definition would include people with disabilities and other people living with chronic conditions. Considering the last definition includes people with psychological pain, how does this definition protect anyone. Someone living with incurable psychological pain, such as those with chronic depression, should not be killed by euthanasia, but rather offered effective and caring treatment for their condition.

* The persons medical condition is characterized by a profound degradation of the persons capacities, with no possibility of improvement.

Note: Many people with disabilities live with conditions that are incurable and can be characterized as living with a profound degradation of their capacities, does that mean that society should be killing them by euthanasia. This definition is clearly oriented to eliminate people with disabilities, who are not terminally ill, and possibly not being provided basic opportunities to live. This section alone should cause people with disabilities to rise up against these euthanasia proposals.

* The person is living with physical or psychological suffering that is constant and unbearable and cannot be relieved by means that the person is willing to tolerate.

Note: This qualification for euthanasia basically allows a doctor to euthanize anyone who is living with a physical or cognitive disability, a person who lives with chronic depression or mental illness, a person who lives with chronic conditions, a frail elderly person who is "tired of living."

This definition will be able to be used to eventually euthanize anyone who reasonably requests euthanasia.

* Euthanasia can only be administered by a physician. The physician must consult another independent physician and the attending physician (the one who does the act), must submit a formal declaration of medical aid in dying (euthanasia) to a provincial board.

Note: The only safeguard in this section is the fact that it states that euthanasia must be done by a physician. A second physician approving euthanasia is not a safeguard. Doctors who are willing to euthanize their patients will know which physicians are willing to sign off on the paperwork.

The doctor who euthanizes the person submits the paperwork to the provincial board. Doctors will not self-report abuse, therefore the report to the provincial board is not a safeguard. This process does not protect the patient, it only protects the doctor.

The Legal Framework

The report indicates that although euthanasia is classified under criminal law, which is federal jurisdiction in Canada, the Dying with Dignity Committee is suggesting that euthanasia is a medical act which is classified under health law, which is provincial jurisdiction. The proposed regulations would be legislated in the Québec Civil Code within the Law on Health and Social Services.

Note: Classifying euthanasia as a medical act is an abomination of language. Medical acts are oriented to treating the medical condition of a patient, not ending the life of a patient. Administering a lethal injection cannot be considered a medical act of treatment.

The report states that since the province regulates medical professionals, therefore the legislation would include new regulations for professional medical associations to allow euthanasia. Recommendation 21 states that medical professionals will be allowed to object to euthanasia, but they are obligated to refer their patients to a medical professional who is willing to kill (euthanize) their patient.

Note: In other words, doctors and nurses are being told that you don't have to kill your patients but you must refer their patients to someone who will.

The report state that the attorney general in Québec will establish prosecution guidelines to ensure that people will not be prosecuted for euthanasia.

Note: These guidelines will protect doctors who euthanize their patients.

The Belgium Euthanasia Model
It is important to note that the "safeguards" that have been proposed by the Québec Dying with Dignity committee are identical to the Belgium Euthanasia Model.
* Belgium legalized euthanasia, but not assisted suicide;
* The reporting process in Belgium does not protect patients. The patient is dead before the report is submitted (after the death reporting). A study that was published in the BMJ - Oct 2010 found that 47% of the euthanasia deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium were not reported.
* A study published in the CMAJ - May 2010 found that 32% of the euthanasia deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium were done without request or consent.
* There are no reports of doctors who were prosecuted in Belgium for ignoring the safeguards.
* Belgium requires doctors to approve euthanasia, but nurses can do it. The report has stated that the Québec nurses association needs to change their code of ethics. A study published in the CMAJ - May 2010 found that 45% of the euthanasia deaths done by nurses were done without request or consent.

In fact euthanasia is out-of-control in Belgium.

The Québec Dying with Dignity report has not yet become the law. Legislators need to be urged to reject the recommendations to legalize euthanasia while supporting the recommendations to improve palliative care.

The safeguards that are being proposed are at best an illusion, especially since they allow euthanasia for people with depression, people with disabilities and people with chronic conditions based on a definition of suffering that cannot be defined or controlled.

The Québec National Assembly needs to change directions and properly plan to care for all of its citizens and not kill.