The wrong decision on assisted suicide.

The following article by Will Johnston, Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - BC was published in the national post. The article is titled: The wrong decision on assisted suicide.

Dr. Will Johnston

By Will Johnston, Chair, EPC - BC

On June 15, the British Columbia Supreme Court rendered a controversial judgment in the case of Carter vs. Canada, one that purports to create constitutional immunity for those who provide assistance to those seeking to kill themselves — a judgment that stands at odds with the Supreme Court of Canada’s Rodriguez ruling in 1993. The only saving grace is that doctors will not be scribbling lethal prescriptions any day soon: Current law will stand for at least a year (the sole exception being the plaintiff in this case, 64-year-old ALS patient Gloria Taylor). Let us hope that a higher court restores sanity to the issue before this 12-month period expires.

Justice Lynn Smith determined that the ban against assisted suicide serves to discriminate against the disabled — and therefore runs afoul of the equality provisions in section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — because it prevents disabled people from getting the help they may need to kill themselves. But the Charter is meant to defend us against violations perpetrated by the state, not abet self-inflicted injuries or death.

Fighting suicide is a national policy. Suicide is strongly discouraged by all manner of health professionals, and some suicidal people are, by law, forcibly hospitalized for assessment and treatment. Yet, in the Carter decision, much is made of the idea that, since suicide is not actually illegal, it is unfair that the disabled who are unable to kill themselves are deprived of the help they need in doing so. Having measles is not against the law either, but most would call it an odd leap of logic to suggest that catching measles should be a constitutional right and that people too disabled to get themselves off to a measles epidemic must be given physician-assisted infection.

In Carter, the judge adopts what my experience tells me is a delusion: That a bright enough line can be drawn between those with identifiable physical ailments who want to die — candidates for “acceptable” assisted suicide — and those who are just depressed or psychotic.

Many of those who reject capital punishment on the chance that one innocent person might be executed have noticed that even the intense scrutiny of a murder trial can fail to get the facts right. Yet when it comes to assisted suicide and euthanasia, the Carter judgment claims that the risks associated with killing someone in an “unacceptable” state of depression or psychosis can be adequately managed.

The reality is that, in liberal foreign jurisdictions admired as models in the Carter decision, literally thousands of assisted suicides happen without the documented consent of those killed. Rules are ignored or become empty rituals. The Carter judgment appears to either misinterpret these deaths, or wave them off as acceptable collateral damage in the pursuit of personal choice and autonomy.

Most Canadians are easily confused by the distinction between refusing or withdrawing medical therapy, and intentional killing of the patient; and Carter contributes to this confusion. For instance, in one paragraph, a false parallel is drawn between a criminal failure to act, which leads to harm, and the doctor’s act of stepping aside when therapy is futile or refused. Common sense tells us that the disease kills the patient, not the doctor who was trying to help, and who is forbidden by law from imposing help when it is not wanted.

Overall, the Carter judgment provides 395 pages of reasons to justify a reckless social experiment that would be difficult to reverse, while dismissing the warnings that all is not well in the places that already have implemented such policies. Based on my 31 years of front-line medical experience, I urge Canadians to be very skeptical about going down this road.

National Post

Will Johnston is a Vancouver G.P., and chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of B.C.

Assisted Suicide ruling: A dangerous step backward.

Margaret Somerville

This article originally appeared in the Globe and Mail on Saturday, June 16.


Striking down, as unconstitutional, the Criminal Code provision prohibiting assisted suicide, as the Gloria Taylor case does, in effect legalizing physician assisted suicide, is a very bad idea and a step backward for Canada and Canadian values, ethics and law. Not least because it will, inevitably, lead to legalizing euthanasia.


Legalizing assisted suicide or euthanasia raises issues, not only, at the level of individuals like Ms. Taylor who wants access to assisted suicide – the micro level – but also at the meso or institutional level – impact on health-care professions and hospitals; and at the macro or societal level – impact on some of our most important shared values that provide the glue that binds us as society.


Taking all this into account, the assisted suicide/euthanasia debate comes down to a direct conflict between the value of respect for human life, on the one hand, and individuals’ rights to autonomy and self-determination – the value of “choice” – on the other.


People who are anti-assisted-suicide/euthanasia give priority to respect for human life. That requires respect for each individual human life, and respect for human life in general. Even if we were to accept (which I do not) that helping a competent, consenting adult to die does not contravene respect for individual human life, it still contravenes respect for human life in general. Legalizing assisted suicide/euthanasia means crossing the line that we must not intentionally kill each other, the only exceptions being where that is the only reasonable way to protect human life, as in self-defence.


People who support legalizing assisted suicide/euthanasia simply assume that individual autonomy is the value that takes priority. But research shows that the most likely reasons people want assisted suicide/euthanasia are fear of being abandoned – dying alone and unloved – and of being a burden on others. Surely our response to such fears shouldn’t be to help them to kill themselves or to give them a lethal injection.


Strong arguments against legalizing assisted suicide/euthanasia at the individual level include a valid concern about their abusive use, especially in relation to old people, and particularly when paired with increasing disquiet about health-care costs. Two relatively recent Environics polls showed Canadians are very concerned about elder abuse if assisted suicide/euthanasia is legalized and that elderly persons could be pressured to accept euthanasia to reduce health-care costs.


I suggest that if we ask ourselves a series of questions about legalizing assisted suicide/euthanasia, many of us will conclude that it’s a very bad idea.


Why are we debating assisted suicide/euthanasia now when there is so much more we can do to relieve pain than was possible in the past? Would legalizing assisted suicide/euthanasia harm medicine and society? The answer is a clear yes. In a secular society, medicine and law are the principal institutions that carry the value of respect for life. They could no longer do so in an unambiguous way.


If we legalized assisted suicide/euthanasia would it become the norm? How do we want our great-great-grandchildren to die? This is probably the most important question of all.


So what do dying people need to make death bearable? Researchers are helping us to gain knowledge in that regard. It includes having access to good palliative care, including fully adequate pain management. But it also includes matters such as helping dying people to feel that they are respected, that they still have something to give to the rest of us, and that even when we are dying we can have a sense of hope and avoid the slough of despair.

The Carter Opinion: Unclear Legal Effect; Invalid Reasoning

By Margaret Dore

On June 15, 2012, Justice Lynn Smith of the BC Supreme Court issued an opinion purporting to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in Canada.[1] As discussed below, the legal effect of this opinion is unclear. The reasoning is also invalid.  

A.  Legal Effect 

The opinion was the result of a summary trial in which both the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of British Columbia argued that the court had no power to do anything other than dismiss the case. This was due to the Supreme Court of Canada's prior decision on similar facts (the Rodriguez case). The opinion states:

"They [Canada and British Columbia] say that it is not open to this Court to do anything other than dismiss the plaintiffs' claim." [2]

If Canada and British Columbia are correct, the opinion is nothing more than an advisory document. Unless and until this point is resolved, any person participating in a death under the opinion will remain at risk of criminal prosecution, civil lawsuits and/or professional discipline.

B.  Invalid Reasoning

The opinion is also written in double-speak, which means to say one thing and to mean another, sometimes the opposite. Most centrally, the opinion bases the plaintiff's "right to die" on her "right to life" in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[3] These are opposite concepts.[4]  

The opinion also argues that because Canadian law does not prohibit suicide as a crime, that commiting suicide is a right.[5] This claim ignores other Canadian law discouraging suicide. Indeed, a suicidal person can be committed against his or her will in order to prevent a suicide.[6] With suicide actively discouraged under the law, it cannot be said that the law somehow grants a right to commit suicide. Once again, the opinion's logic is flawed.

* * *

[1]  To view the opinion, click here.
[2]  Opinion, page 251, paragraph 891.
[3]  Id., pages 365-8.
[4]  See e.g., the opinion at 366, pargraph 1314, which states: "Canada argues that the right to life does not include the right to choose death. [Canada] submits that such an interpretation would directly contradict the plain and obvious meaning of a right to life and would mark a significant departure from existing Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence."
[5]  See e.g., the opinion at 10, pargraph 15: "The claim that the legislation infringes Ms. Taylor's equality rights begins with the fact that the law does not prohibit suicide. However, persons who are physically disabled such that they cannot commit suicide without help are denied that option because s. 241(b) prohibits assisted suicide."
[6]  See BC Mental Health Act, Part 3, Section 22 (allowing involuntary admissions "to prevent the person's or patient's substantial mental or physical deterioration or for the protection of the person or patient or the protection of others").

BC COURT DECISION TO LEGALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE & EUTHANASIA, A RECIPE FOR ELDER ABUSE THAT THREATHENS THE SAFETY, SECURITY AND EQUALITY OF CANADIANS.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Press Release                  

Friday, June 15, 2012

The BC Supreme Court released its decision in Carter v. AG Canada today. The decision carves exceptions into the laws allowing Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in Canada.

The Federal Parliament of Canada recently considered legalization of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in a bill that came before the House in 2010. Bill C-384 was overwhelmingly defeated based upon concerns related to the prospect of the abuse of seniors, people with disabilities, the lack of an effective national suicide prevention strategy, and the lack of access to good palliative care in Canada.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Executive Director Alex Schadenberg states:

Parliament's overwhelming defeat of Bill C-384 months ago reflects that there has not been a change in social consensus since the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in the case of Rodriguez v. AG BC in 1993. 

Today's court decision is fundamentally at odds with the will of Parliament as expressed just months ago and is fundamentally anti-democratic. 

EPC counsel Hugh Scher notes:

EPC is concerned about the safety, security and equality of people with disabilities and seniors which is central to the protections set out under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our Criminal Code.

EPC-BC chair Dr. Will Johnston states:

Most elder abuse is hidden from view - and if we can't detect the abuse now, how are we going to do it when the stakes are raised? I have seen how easily influenced older people can be, and how inadequate are our national strategies against suicide. The present decision, which should be immediately appealed and corrected, is a huge step backwards, a blow to public safety, and would force changes in public policy which would do more harm than good.  

Dr. Johnston notes that:

Today's decision would point Canada towards the Oregon assisted suicide regime, which has become notorious for its erosion of medical standards and abuse of psychiatry to rubber-stamp suicide requests. The wish to avoid Oregon's mistakes has been reflected in over 100 rejections of assisted suicide by legislatures in North America and by medical associations around the world. 

EPC is urging the Crown to immediately appeal this decision to the BC Court of Appeal and to seek an order that stays the effect of the decision until such time as that appeal is heard.

For further information, please contact:
Alex Schadenberg, EPC Executive Director: (519) 851-1434, info@epcc.ca
Dr. Will Johnston, EPC-BC Chair: (604) 220-2042
Hugh Scher, EPC Legal Counsel: (416) 816-6115

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Box 25033 - London, Ontario N6C 6A8 - 1-877-439-3348

Quebec government establishes a legal committee for the purpose of allowing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide.

The Liberal Quebec government announced yesterday that it is creating a committee of legal experts to examine how euthanasia and assisted suicide could be allowed in Quebec, despite the fact that they are forbidden by the federal criminal code. The announcement was made during a joint press briefing by Minister of Health Yves Bolduc and Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Quebec, Jean-Marc Fournier.

The comments by Minister Bolduc and Minister Fournier were made the day before Justice Lynn Smith had stated that she would be handing down her decision in the Carter case in BC, a case that seeks to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.

Yves Bolduc

Minister Bolduc explained that a report recently released by the Select Committee on Dying with Dignity, which recommended that euthanasia be permitted in Quebec, was “well received” and motivated the move to find legal experts who would guide the implementation of its recommendations in Quebec. Bolduc also noted that the Select Committee was one of the most widely followed committees in Quebec history, and the one with the most briefs submitted.

Justice Minister Jean-Marc Fournier stated that the recommendations contained in the commission’s report had “juridical implications of fundamental import.” He asserted that the commission offered “rigorous conditions for obtaining medical aid in dying” and restated one of the recommendations of the Committee, namely that the attorney general of Quebec direct his various district attorneys to refuse to charge any doctor who commits an act of euthanasia in conformity with certain clearly-stated criteria.

A report published by Vivre dans la Dignité in Quebec in November 2011 found that the majority of the submissions to the Select Committee on Dying with Dignity were opposed to any change in the law. Linda Couture, the director of Vivre dans la Dignité stated concerning her research:

“The numbers are black and white. In the presentations to the Commission there was 99 per cent agreement that palliative care is the dignified choice Quebecers want available at the end of life. 

At the same time, 60 per cent of the submissions opposed any opening for euthanasia. The government’s democratic direction should be clear,” said Linda Couture, director of the nonpartisan, grass roots group, Living With Dignity. 

Couture said an exhaustive Living with Dignity independent analysis of the 427 oral presentations and written submissions to the Commission, shows a mere two per cent of the submissions support assisted suicide. 

Four per cent of those who made submissions did not have a clear position.
Only about a third of those who submitted to the commission were either somewhat or strongly in favor of euthanasia, Couture said: “This is a far cry from the inflated survey numbers often used in the media by advocates for legalizing or decriminalizing euthanasia in Quebec.” 

A further analysis of the content of the submissions of those who apparently favored euthanasia showed significant confusion between directly taking a patient’s life – outlawed under the Criminal Code – and ceasing futile treatment, which is universally acknowledged as ethical and proper.

It is clear from the analysis by Vivre dans la Dignité that the Quebec government needs to be reminded that most Quebecois don't actually support euthanasia or assisted suicide.

The Select Committee report recommended that a bill outlining the criteria by which doctors could kill their patients be presented in Quebec’s national assembly by no later than June 2013. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Vivre dans la Dignité have asked to co-intervene in the Leblanc case in Quebec, a case that seeks to legalize assisted suicide in Quebec.

Link to the original article that was published by LifeSiteNews.

From Afghanistan to Activist Against Assisted Suicide: "These are things worth fighting for"

By John Coppard

To view the original publication in Brain Tumour Magazine. To learn more about the International Brain Tumour Alliance.

It was early summer 2009 and I was on my second “tour” in Kabul, Afghanistan, this time as NATO’s civilian spokesman. I was responsible for representing NATO to media from the Alliance’s 28 member nations - regional powers such as Iran, Russia and Pakistan, and other troop contributing nations to the International Security Assistance Force, as well as Afghanistan’s own emerging media. While my military counterpart handled military-specific issues, I was responsible for explaining the political and diplomatic aspects of NATO’s support to this brave and tragic country. With lukewarm support for the mission in many contributing nations, and a traumatised Afghan population bombarded by Taliban propaganda and wary of Western intentions, the stress of the job could be intense.

I felt up to the challenge.

But in the spring of 2009 I began to feel periods of light-headedness, bordering on faint, and experienced strange tastes and smells, later identified as small seizures. I first chalked it up to heat exhaustion and maybe stress, something my relatively junior military MD supported. But it wasn’t until two friends confronted me and told me that “something was seriously wrong with me”, that I aggressively sought treatment. I still believe one of them, a young major, may have saved my life by confronting me the night before she left for Canada. I went back to the doctor the day after and was advised that a team of US military neurosurgeons had just arrived from the large US military hospital in Langstuhl, Germany, with a CT scanner. They were at the nearby Baghram Air Base, outside Kabul, in anticipation of an influx of US and Polish combat casualties from a major operation in the east of the country. I was told that if I got in to see them right away, I might be able to get a CT scan.

After a high-speed, hair-raising drive in a private Toyota Corolla with my brave and devoted Afghan interpreter and country advisor (a trained but unemployed radiology technician it turned out), the doctors detected a tumour the size of a pool cue ball in my right temporal lobe. Not to worry they said, it may be benign.

Unfortunately, that wasn’t so. Several days later after being medically evacuated to Brussels and operated on, my Belgian neurosurgeon gave me the news. He had successfully removed most of a 5 x 5 x 4 cm brain tumour, but it was malignant: an aggressive Grade IV Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM).

What surprised me was how upbeat he sounded when he gave me the news that I had a 20% chance of surviving five years according to the latest edition of the British medical journal, The Lancet.

“What’s so good about that?” I thought, not realizing that had I received the same diagnosis before a relatively recent treatment combining temozolomide and radiation had been developed, my prognosis would have been measured in months.

I underwent the whole six-and-a-half weeks of the combined treatment, then returned to Victoria, British Columbia, on the west coast of Canada, to be with family and friends. I began to stabilize and became more optimistic, particularly given the professionalism of my doctors. The brain tumour experts all seemed to know one another, whether in Canada or in Belgium. It was an encouraging sign.

Unfortunately, after about six months my body built up a resistance to temozolomide and my tumour reappeared. Again, however, a recent development in medical science gave me new hope. My oncologists consulted with an esteemed neurosurgeon in Vancouver, a gentleman known personally to my Belgian neurosurgeon, who put me on a combined treatment of Avastin and etoposide, the latter being a chemotherapy capsule. The combination knocked the cancer back immediately. That was over a year and a half ago and I’ve been doing great since. That’s why when I heard that a high profile court case was challenging Canada’s laws prohibiting assisted suicide, I felt the need to speak out. The case, should it succeed, proposes something quite radical whereby anyone with a “grievous and irremediable” illness such as cancer, or even diabetes, could be legally “steered” or counseled to take their own life, even by a potential heir, their own medical system, or a nurse, doctor, or caregiver. They would then have ready, legal access to a prescription dose of death-inducing drugs, and assisted in taking their own lives by anyone, even an heir, without a physician or an independent witness present (see the Carter Amended Notice of Civil Claim at www.epcbc.ca).

I had experienced periods of great distress during my two-and-a-half year journey with brain cancer and realized how my rights could have been abused had such a system been in place when I was in the early stages of my journey. I believe my country’s anti-assisted suicide laws exist to protect me and people like me from abuse when we are at our lowest and most vulnerable. I have been given a second chance at life due to highly professional medical support from a system dedicated, and legally bound, to treating me.

As a retired Navy man with 24 years’experience in the Canadian Forces, speaking publicly about myself and my periods of vulnerability was not easy, even with my training as a spokesman. But I believe those of us who are living with brain tumours, and have the ability to do so, should speak out on health, legal and political issues that affect us.

I believe we owe it to those who no longer have a voice due to physiological or psychological reasons to protect their rights as much as we can, and ensure they, and we, have the opportunity to avail themselves of the best treatment possible.

I was personally overwhelmed by the positive response I received for speaking out, and remain hopeful that as medical science continues to advance, all of us who live with brain tumours may benefit from systems, societies and laws that protect our rights, serve our interests, and give us the best chance of living long and happy lives.

These are things worth fighting for.

(John Coppard - 29 July 1966 - 5 March 2012)


A link to the letter by John Coppard to the Victoria Times Colonist.

Euthanasia bill defeated in South Australian parliament - again.

HOPE

Paul Russell

Paul Russell, the leader of HOPE Australia is reporting that a euthanasia bill in the South Australian parliament was defeated again, even after the author of the bill attempted to pull a fast one.

Russell reported:

In an unexpected move in the SA Lower House today, independent MP, Bob Such drew the Second Reading debate to a close on his euthanasia bill. Early reports suggest that this was the same kind of shenanigans pulled int he same chamber last year over Steph Key's euthanasia bill. 

Many MPs would not have been aware that this vote was coming on. There was no indication of any priority being given to this bill on the notice paper. 

Nevertheless, the bill was defeated! 

Many thanks to Damian Wyld from the Australian Family Association for his 'on-the-spot' text reporting. Damian was in the gallery to observe debate on another bill when this move was made. 

I'll report on the numbers later. What we can say at this time, however, is that the SA Lower House clearly has no mood for this type of legislation and possible distain for the antics of a few who have tried various 'unusual' tactics to force their agenda!

I have always said that if there is nothing wrong with euthanasia, then why does the euthanasia movement need to constantly pull these shenanigans, and conflate and lie about the facts.

Russell has been relentless in his work to stop the euthanasia movement in Australia from legalizing euthanasia. In Australia, euthanasia is a state issue, therefore Russell has been working in South Australia, as well as other states, to protect Australians from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

As Russell noted, Steph Key has also been pushing a euthanasia bill in South Australia. Let's hope that Key gets the message. I will be speaking to a meeting of members of the South Australian parliament in a few weeks.

Assisted Suicide in Swiss nursing homes - a recipe for elder abuse.

Canton Vaud

On Sunday June 17, citizens in the Swiss Canton Vaud will be voting on a referendum on whether or not to allow assisted suicide groups to work within the nursing homes.

Exit, the leading assisted suicide group in Switzerland, has been pushing its way into Swiss nursing homes. Exit, who are celebrating 30 years as a group, are an assisted suicide group that works by selling memberships to people who support the concept of assisted suicide and then charging fees to people when they aid their suicide death.

The question that the people of the Canton Vaud will vote on is: Should we require the EMS to accept assisted suicide within their walls? Notice that the question isn't should it be an option - or should their be access to assisted suicide, the referendum will require nursing homes to allow groups like Exit to set - up shop within the confines of the nursing home.

A recent article indicates that in the German speaking parts of Switzerland, already 50% of the nursing homes allow Exit to enter their institution to promote an assisted suicide death. Considering the scourge of elder abuse within western society, Exit should be barred from trolling the nursing homes in Switzerland. The Canton Vaud has, until now, resisted Exit from entering the nursing homes.

The people of the Canton Vaud need vote against this referendum and tell Exit to stay away from their seniors.

All this occurs two days after World Elder Abuse Prevention Day (June 15) and it is occurring during the World Federation of Right to Die Societies conference in Zurich Switzerland. I fear that the media attention being placed on the euthanasia conference in Zurich will influence the people of Vaud to vote in favour of allowing Exit to enter the nursing homes.

What is ridiculous about this proposal is that many people within nursing homes already feel abandoned by their family and friends and many of them are experiencing abuse from people who they are dependent upon.

Elder abuse in long-term care facilities is common and recently elder abuse prevention programs have started tackling this pervasive problem. A study that was done in 2010 of nursing home staff found that 50% admitted to abusing or neglecting residents at some point while another study done in 2010 found that 7% of all complaints in nursing homes related to abuse or neglect. These are American statistics but I am sure that elder abuse exists within Switzerland.

Some facts related to elder abuse:

* 85% of elder abuse goes unreported.
* 1 in 9 Americans over the age of 60 have experienced some form of elder abuse.
* 67% of elder abuse is done by family members, who the person is dependent on.
* 50% of people with dementia experience abuse.

The people of the Canton Vaud need to tell Exit to keep away from their seniors. It is bad enough that people feel so rejected by others that they "voluntarily" contact Exit, it is another thing to allow Exit to troll the halls of the nursing homes looking for people who are willing and financially able to pay them for death.

Australia's Dr. Death - Philip Nitschke - may lose his medical licence

Philip Nitschke

An article written by Tom Bowden and published yesterday in Adelaide Now is reporting that Philip Nitschke (Australia's Dr Death) may lose his medical license.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) appears to be investigating Nitschke based on his involvement in the death of a woman who died from ingesting Nembutal, a drug that is used by veterinarians to euthanize large animals. Nitschke was visiting this woman, and the AHPRA appears to be investigating whether or not his advice to her constituted a breach of professional conduct.

The AHPRA has stated that their investigation into Philip Nitschke is impartial, Nitschke is accusing a doctor who is involved with a right to life group of influencing the AHPRA in the investigation.

Nitschke has been counselling people as to how to commit suicide for many years. His "peaceful pill" handbook not only explains how to commit suicide, but also where and how to obtain the means of suicide.

In February 2010 I wrote an article about a report of 51 people in Australia who died from Nembutal use that was in the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine.

The report stated that of the 51 people who were known to have died from Nembutal, 6 people were in their 20's, 8 people were in their 30's, 5 people were in their 40's, 14 people were in their 50's, 3 people in their 60's, 10 in their 70's, and 5 people were over the age of 80.

The report found that of the 38 known deaths that were investigated by a coroner, only 11 had a significant physical illness or chronic pain with the remaining 27 cases showing no signs of physical problems.

The report suggested that the 27 otherwise healthy people who died from Nembutal use were most likely depressed or mentally ill.

Even though the report only referred to 51 Nembutal deaths, Nitschke stated that he knew of between 250 - 300 Nembutal deaths, and when questioned about the deaths that were related to depressed people Nitschke stated:

"There will be some casualties."

The AHPRA needs to expand their investigation into Nitschke. They need to: analyse his "peaceful pill" book, seek out people, who are alive today, who were depressed and suicidal and contacted Nitschke, and they need to investigate other Nembutal related deaths.

Nitschke appears to be similar to a person who trolls the side of a cliff looking for people who are thinking about suicide. He doesn't actually push them off, but with a few words of encouragement and suggestions as to how to effectively jump, he convinces them to jump.

Australia Awards Infanticide and Euthanasia guru the Highest Civic Award

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Wesley Smith

Australia recently awarded Peter Singer their highest award of distinction, they made him a companion in the General Division of the Order of Australia.

Normally a nations best known philosopher would be awarded this distinction without controversy, but  Singer is known for promoting many horrific ideas.

Bioethicist Wesley Smith, wrote a commentary that was published yesterday in the National Review on the awarding of Peter Singer with the Order of Australia that was entitled: Australia Awards Infanticide guru Highest Civic Award.

Smith clearly explains what Peter Singer's ideology promotes. Smith stated:

This is a disgrace: Peter Singer has won Australia’s highest civic award. From the Princeton press release: 

Singer is best known for advocating the ethical propriety of infanticide. But that isn’t nearly the limit of his odious advocacy. Here is a partial list of some other notable Singer bon mots: 

Singer supports using cognitively disabled people in medical experiments instead of animals that have a higher “quality of life.” 

Peter Singer

Singer does not believe humans reach “full moral status” until after the age of two. 

Singer supports non-voluntary euthanasia of human “non-persons.” 

Singer has defended bestiality. 

Singer started the “Great Ape Project” that would establish a “community of equals” among humans, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, and orangutans. 

Singer supports health-care rationing based on “quality of life.” 

Singer has questioned whether “the continuance of the human species is justifiable,” since it will result in suffering. 

Singer believes “speciesism” — viewing humans as having greater value than animals — is akin to racism. 

Singer believes that animals should be given “equal consideration” with humans in utilitarian policy analyses. 

Singer asserted that Australia’s greenhouse-gas emissions are morally equivalent to “waging aggressive war on Bangladesh." 

Well, you get the idea. As the old song says, it’s a sign of the times. The more radical and anti–human exceptionalism a public intellectual’s views, the greater his or her chances are of receiving civic and academic accolades.

Comment: Smith is not alone in his disgust with Singer being awarded the Order of Australia. An article by Christian Kerr that was published in the Australian yesterday promotes similar concerns: Award for Singer 'madness.'

Peter Singer is Australia's most famous philosopher and possibly the most famous philosophers in the world. Singer's philosophical ideology is dangerous and it undermines the equality of all human beings and (if accepted) will lead to the acceptance of infanticide and non-voluntary euthanasia of people with disabilities and cognitive conditions.

The world needs more people who are willing and able to challenge Singer's philosophy as an attack on human dignity and human equality.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition co-hosts press conference during the World Federation of Right to Die Societies Conference

Clare O'Dea from Swissinfo.ch, reported on the opening of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies conference that began in Zurich Switzerland today.


Swissinfo.ch reported that:

Alex Schadenberg

The Canada-based Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is the official organiser of the counter-conference, which is being held in a venue across the road from the right-to-die congress.

Alex Schadenberg told swissinfo.ch that the idea behind the counter-conference was to provide balance for people who would be hearing news stories and possibly interested in attending the world federation conference.  

He plans to present several studies that uncover serious problems with applying legal euthanasia or assisted suicide. “There are no circumstances where the law should allow others to aid, counsel or encourage others to commit suicide,” he said.

Emma Thomasson from Reuters reported on the comments by Ted Goodwin, the President of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies:

He said ageing societies meant that half of medical costs are now falling in the last three to six months of life on care that does not change the trajectory of a disease. 

The number of Swiss residents who died by assisted suicide rose sevenfold between 1998 and 2009 to almost 300, statistics published for the first time showed in March

During the press conference, Alex Schadenberg from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition explained that legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide is simply not safe. It is a public safety issue.


Schadenberg explained that recent studies from Belgium have found that: 32% of all euthanasia deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium are done without request or consent and only 53% of all euthanasia deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium are reported.


He then explained that the 2005 meta study of euthanasia in the Netherlands found that there were 550 deaths without request or consent in 2005  in the Netherlands and approximately 20% of all euthanasia deaths went unreported.


Schadenberg continued by explaining that: a study from the Netherlands that was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (September 2005) found that people with a depressed mood were 4.1 times more likely to request euthanasia. The study concluded that a depressed mood is a primary indicator for requests for euthanasia.


Schadenberg then reinforced that it is not safe to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide.  He stated, that this is not a perfect world and abuse will occur. When abuse results in the death of a person, that the act is irrevocable.


He concluded by stating that euthanasia and assisted suicide are being debated throughout the world and yet it has only been legalized in very few jurisdictions. He reminded the media that the euthanasia lobby has lost in nearly every attempt, except for a very few.


Reuters reported on the EPC press conference in this way:

Alex Schadenberg, the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, pointed to studies from the Netherlands and Belgium which he said showed significant numbers of deaths by euthanasia "without explicit request or consent". 

"The problem with euthanasia or assisted suicide is you're giving somebody else the right to be involved in causing your death," he said. 

"Society needs to be vigilant about suffering, but the answer is not giving power over life and death to somebody else."

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is sponsoring a counter-conference to the World Federation of Right to Die Societies conference, on Friday June 15 in Zurich Switzerland.

What we weren't told about Terry Pratchett's 'award winning' euthanasia documentary

Peter Saunders

Link to his original article.

By Peter Saunders - Campaign Director - Care Not Killing Alliance - UK -
June 9, 2012

Fantasy novelist Terry Pratchett has won a Bafta for his ‘documentary’ ‘Choosing To Die’, in which he followed a man with motor neurone disease to Switzerland in order to film him killing himself at the Dignitas facility.

The man’s wife, who was clearly very uncomfortable about the whole event, but went along with it out of deference to her husband, was prevented from comforting him as he died by one of the facility staff.

The film generated a huge number of complaints to the BBC.

Terry Pratchett

At a recent meeting where I was speaking a woman told me that she had always supported assisted suicide before seeing the film, but that watching it had caused her to change her mind. She now strongly opposes a change in the law.

Pratchett is one of the celebrity Patrons of Dignity in Dying, the former Voluntary Euthanasia Society, and helped to finance the discredited Falconer Commission into assisted suicide, which was itself conceived by the pressure group.

I have blogged previously about the BBC acting as a cheerleader for euthanasia by supporting films like this and also the dangers of suicide contagion, or the Werther effect, following such depictions.

I have listed the twenty things that the Pratchett ‘documentary’ did not tell us about euthanasia in Europe. [The blog,from June 2011, is reproduced below.]

Twenty facts we did not learn from Terry Pratchett’s BBC ‘documentary’ on assisted suicide in Europe

The Sunday Times, in line with its new editorial policy, ran a typically effusive article last weekend about last night’s ‘documentary’ in which we saw a British man, Peter Smedley, kill himself on screen by drinking poison at the Dignitas suicide facility near Zurich.

Earlier this year I suggested that the BBC was acting in the role of cheerleader for assisted suicide through its partisan coverage of this issue; and I blogged earlier about how this particular programme was further evidence of BBC bias and would fuel more suicides by way of the Werther effect.

But I was also interested to see Mr Pratchett’s (brief) description in the Sunday Times about how the documentary came to be made in the first place.

‘Late last year the BBC, which had earlier transmitted my Dimbleby lecture on assisted dying, asked me to “learn something about assisted dying practices elsewhere in Europe” and also to speak to Britons who had signed up with Dignitas… Of course I said yes.

Here are twenty things the programme did not tell us about assisted suicide and euthanasia in Europe:

1. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are illegal in every country in Europe with the exception of Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland and the Netherlands – just four of the fifty sovereign states.

2. Margo Macdonald’s End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill, which would have legalised both euthanasia and assisted suicide in Scotland, suffered an overwhelming defeat by a 85-16 margin last November because MSPs were convinced that its ‘safeguards’ were not safe.

3. On 20 January 2011 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that while there is a ‘human right’ to suicide, the state has no obligation to provide citizens with the means to commit suicide.

4. On 25 January 2011 the French Senate rejected proposals to legalise assisted suicide and euthanasia, by 170 votes to 142. Francois Fillon, the French prime minister, had spoken out strongly against the proposals.

5. The German Medical Congress, representing German Physicians, decided on 1 June to oppose assisted suicide and euthanasia, leading to a change in doctors’ guidance which will prohibit doctors from participating in both assisted suicide and euthanasia.

6. Using organs from euthanasia victims is now an established procedure in Belgium.

7. At least 300 cremation urns containing human remains have been dumped in Lake Zurich near the controversial Swiss suicide facility Dignitas.

8. A recent study found that in the Flemish part of Belgium, 66 of 208 cases of ‘euthanasia’ (32%) occurred in the absence of request or consent.

9. In Belgium, nearly half of all cases of euthanasia are not reported to the Federal Control and Evaluation Committee. Legal requirements were more frequently not met in unreported cases than in reported cases and a written request for euthanasia was absent in 88%.

10. Dozens of disabled children have been killed under the Groningen protocol in the Netherlands despite the fact that this is illegal.

11. In 2006 the Royal Dutch Medical Association declared that ‘being over the age of 70 and tired of living’ should be an acceptable reason for requesting euthanasia.

12. Many who have died at the Dignitas facility are not terminally ill. Ludwig Minelli, the Director, has helped people who are chronically ill, disabled, depressed or frail elderly to kill themselves and has suggested the relations of the terminally ill could also take a lethal drug cocktail even if they are in perfect health.

13. The Dignitas facility had to move from the residential apartment block it was located in after residents complained about encountering body bags in the lifts.

14. Jacques Attali, former President of the European Bank for reconstruction and development, has said, ‘As soon as he goes beyond 60-65 years of age man lives beyond his capacity to produce, and he costs society a lot of money…euthanasia will be one of the essential instruments of our future societies.’

15. Almost half of Belgium’s euthanasia nurses have admitted to killing without consent, despite the fact that involuntary euthanasia is illegal in Belgium and that nurses are not allowed to perform even voluntary euthanasia.

16. In 2007 approximately 10% of all deaths in the Netherlands were connected to the practice of terminal sedation. Many of those deaths were caused by dehydration, by the physician sedating the patient and then withholding hydration until death occurs, which usually takes 10 – 14 days.

17. Soraya Wernli, a nurse employed by Dignitas between 2003 and 2005, has accused the organisation of being a ‘production line of death concerned only with profits’.

18. According to a 2005 House of Lords Select Committee Report a Dutch-type euthanasia law in Britain would result in 13,000 deaths per year.

19. Grand Duke Henri, the monarch of Luxembourg, opposed the euthanasia law and as a result was stripped of his executive power to veto laws.

20. The Nazi holocaust began in 1939 with the killing of 6,000 disabled children and 70,000 patients in geriatric and psychiatric institutions. Leo Alexander, a psychiatrist who gave evidence at Nuremberg in 1949 said that ‘its beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted and finally all non-Germans.’

Murder-suicide rarely "compassionate homicide."

John Romano wrote an excellent article entitled: Murder-Suicides make news, but more abuse hides behind closed doors that was published Sunday, June 10, 2012 in the Tampa Bay Times.

This is an important article because the euthanasia lobby has been using the argument that legalizing assisted suicide will eliminate or lessen the problem of murder-suicide, but in fact research shows that murder-suicide (when done for supposedly "compassionate" reasons) is almost always related to a controlling/ abusive husband being unwilling to care for his sick wife.

Donna Cohen

Research by Donna Cohen, a suicide researcher, and others proves that homicide/suicide is rarely related to "compassionate" homicide.

Cohan stated the following in a Minnesota Tribune article from March 2009:
When people read reports of a murder-suicide they will often ask the question, was this an Act of love, or desperation? Cohen who has researched this question tries to find answers. She stated in the article:

That notion is common in murder-suicides, said Cohen, who has testified before Congress, written extensively and helped train families and physicians. She is a professor of aging and mental health at the University of South Florida and heads its Violence and Injury Prevention Program.

"If they were consulted, families usually would try to stop it,'' she said. "In fact, murder-suicide almost always is not an act of love. It's an act of desperation."

Cohen also recognizes that murder-suicide does not equate with assisted suicide. She said:

Some people equate murder-suicide with assisted suicide and the right to control when you will die, Cohen said. "It usually is not the same. This is suicide and murder.''

Murder-Suicide make news, but more abuse hides behind closed doors.

By John Romano - June 10, 2012

Four words in a headline­ Husband kills wife, self­ is all it takes to quicken the pulse and grip the heart.

Four words to trigger the memories, regrets and fears all around.

In the offices of a domestic violence shelter, Linda Osmundson wonders, and worries, if this was one of the women her group was unable to protect.

Audrey Mabrey debates attending the funeral for the woman she did not know, worrying that the scars from where her own husband once set her ablaze might make her unwelcome.

Paula Moore sits at her desk in the accounting department of a Tampa firm and silently recalls the bruises, broken bones and mental torture she once endured.

That poor woman, they all seem to say, could have been me.

The murder-suicide in Clearwater last week was the sixth case of its kind in Pinellas County in less than five months.

Some of the victims were young; others were older. Some were separated; a few shared a home with their killer. Many of their neighbors were surprised; some were not.

To the survivors of domestic abuse, those details are almost inconsequential. They have already lived through the daily horror of that story.

To them, there is one trait of domestic violence that is nearly universal. And a murder-suicide might be the ultimate example, for it's the final word in power and control.

"It is 100 percent about dominance and control,'' said Moore, who fled Ohio two years ago to escape an abusive relationship. "You look at women who stay and stay and stay, and you wonder why. It's because they have no more self-esteem, no self-respect.

"You've been beaten physically and mentally for so long, you get to the point where you think that's all there is, or all that will ever be.''

Anecdotally, it might seem as if the number of murder-suicides is suddenly spiking. Statistically, it is harder to track.

For law enforcement agencies, the investigation ends once a ruling of murder-suicide is confirmed. And that means it may never reach the desk of a domestic violence unit.

What we do know is the Florida Department of Law Enforcement has tracked roughly 90 to 120 murders of spouses or co-habitants every year for the past decade.

And those numbers don't even begin to tell the story of women who endure their beatings in silence. Women who are afraid to leave. Who don't have the means. Who worry what will become of their children if they try to flee.

In fact, the desperation of a murder-suicide is often precipitated by the possibility of the woman leaving the relationship. Of the six recent cases in Pinellas, at least four involved some level of separation between the couples.

"The violence often escalates when the guy feels he's losing control,'' said Osmundson, executive director of Community Action Stops Abuse in St. Petersburg. "If he starts threatening suicide, it's a huge red flag for us. 

If he is willing to commit suicide, then you are entering a really, really dangerous situation.

"That's what murder-suicide is: I've got you, and I'm taking you with me.''

Even in cases when the abuse was not as apparent, or not as severe, the trigger before the escalation is almost always there.

In Mabrey's case, which drew national headlines in 2009 when her husband doused her in gasoline and threw a candle at her, physical abuse had arrived only in the final days.

It was when Mabrey moved out of their home and began preparing for a divorce that the situation turned dangerous.

"The point of hitting is to obtain and maintain control,'' Mabrey said. "My husband was not a violent man before that. He was a cop. He was the last person you would have expected to do something like that.

"But at the end of the day, when a person who is used to being in control feels like they've lost everything, then they're capable of doing anything.''

Mabrey now devotes her life to speaking out against domestic abuse and spreading the word for groups such as Community Action Stops Abuse and the Family Justice Center of Hillsborough County.

The Justice Center has created an advocacy committee called Voices, where domestic abuse survivors tell their stories and encourage battered women to seek help.

"We can answer their questions, identify with their fears, speak their language,'' said Kimberly Alexander, who is chair for the Voices committee. "All of the women in Voices have been to hell and looked Satan in the eyes, and we've survived. We would be doing ourselves and our legacy a disservice if we didn't speak out.

"As a society, we've become kind of insensitive. Yes, it's in the news and you're talking about it today, but in a few days we will have forgotten about it. But that doesn't mean it's not still out there behind a lot of closed doors.''

Need help? The statewide domestic violence hotline is, toll-free, 1-800-500-1119.
That number will direct you to the nearest domestic violence center.

Link to a previous article on the topic by Stephen Drake, the research analyst from the disability right group Not Dead Yet.