Assisted Suicide exemption creates "exception to murder"

The following article was written by Deborah Gyapong and published in the Canadian Catholic News under the title: Assisted Suicide exemption creates "exemption to murder." The bracketed word was edited to correct the quote.

OTTAWA - Groups opposing euthanasia have expressed alarm over a B.C. judge's recent ruling that allows Gloria Taylor, a B.C. woman dying of a degenerative nerve disorder, a constitutional exemption to an assisted suicide should her symptoms worsen in the next year.

Taylor, one of the plaintiffs in the controversial Carter case decided last June, had been granted the exemption when B.C. Supreme Court Justice Lynn Smith struck down Canada's laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia as unconstitutional on Charter grounds. Smith ruled the laws would be kept in force for a year so Parliament can react with new legislation, but allowed Taylor the exemption while the law is still in force.

In July, the federal government appealed the Carter decision, including the constitutional exemption.

On Aug. 10, B.C. Justice Jo-Ann Prowse, however, ruled removing the exemption would cause Taylor "irreparable harm" by taking away the solace and peace of mind of knowing she could obtain an assisted suicide and by removing her ability to have one before her symptoms became unbearable.

"The suggestion that denying Ms. Taylor the exemption would have caused her irreparable harm is absurd," said Catholic Organization for Life and Family (COLF) assistant director Peter Murphy. "Surely to kill or to facilitate killing is to do irreparable harm.

"Do we really want to live in country where individual judges hold the keys to life and death?" he asked. "The value of human life can never be measured by some subjective notion of its quality."

Alex Schadenberg

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) executive director Alex Schadenberg questioned whether judges were "overstepping" their bounds. He pointed out the Supreme Court of Canada upheld Parliament's laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide in the 1993 Rodriguez case. Sue Rodriguez, who also had ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease, found an anonymous doctor who helped her end her life in 1994.

"It appears to me that judges are trying to make decisions that fit what they want rather than the law and judicial precedence," Schadenberg said. "They're writing their laws, their own script, and it's very concerning to me."

The Carter decision will be argued before the B.C. Court of Appeal March 4-8, 2013 and many have argued the constitutional exemption is an exception only for Taylor. But Schadenberg pointed out that others may seek exemptions under the principle of equality before the law.

"Other people who fit the criteria would have to be taken seriously," he said, noting he expected lawyers in the Ginette LeBlanc case to be argued in Quebec this December to ask for one. LeBlanc also suffers from ALS.

"Technically, the law has not changed. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are still completely illegal. Rodriquez is still upheld," Schadenberg said.

"But a judge is saying it is okay in this circumstance, the laws do not apply. It's not about Parliament, not about the Supreme Court, it's about a single judge. We're putting the power of life and death in the hands of a judge or a doctor."

Schadenberg said the federal  Attorney General can appeal this latest ruling on the constitutional exemption and urged Canadians to let Justice Minister Rob Nicholson know they want him to do so.

Schadenberg said that [euthanasia] is the intentional killing of a human being.

"That's homicide," he said. "We are creating an exception to murder."

Assisted Suicide: "Whose Choice?"

The following article: Assisted Suicide: "Whose Choice?" was published in the Montana Senior News, August/September 2012

Bradley Williams

By Bradley Williams 

Have you been solicited to engage in “aid-in-dying?”  Were you told that “aid-in-dying” is legal? Did something about what you were told seem not quite right? 

“Aid-in-dying” is a euphemism for assisted suicide and euthanasia. See e.g., the Model Aid-in-Dying Act, at www.uiowa.edu/~sfklaw/euthan.html (note the letters “euthan” in the link). The term, “aid-in-dying” is not limited to people who are dying. In the Montana Supreme Court case, Baxter, the plaintiffs had sought to legalize the practice for people with chronic conditions, for example, an 18 year old who is insulin- dependent. See http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/schrempp_wonderly_opn_ltr1.pdf  

“Aid-in-dying” is, regardless, not legal in Montana. Baxter did not legalize the practice.  Moreover, a bill that would have legalized the practice ( SB 167) was defeated in the last legislative session.  

Proponents claim that legalization will assure patient “choice.” This is untrue. The bill proposed last session allowed the lethal dose to be administered without oversight. If enacted, it would have created the opportunity for an heir, or someone else who would benefit from the death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without her consent. Even if she struggled, who would know?  

To learn more, contact Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity, 610 North 1st Street, Suite 5-285, Hamilton, MT 59840 at 406-531-0937 or visit: www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org 

Response to: Choosing when and how to die: Are we ready to perform therapeutic homicide?

The following article was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal and titled: Response to Choosing when and how to die: Are we ready to perform therapeutic homicide?

Ken Stevens

Kenneth R. Stevens, Radiation Oncologist, MD

I am a cancer doctor in Oregon where physician-assisted suicide is legal. This letter responds to the editorial by Dr. Flegel and Dr.Fletcher, "Choosing when and how to die: Are we ready to perform therapeutic homicide?" (June 25 2012)

In Oregon, the combination of assisted-suicide legalization and prioritized medical care based on prognosis has created a danger for my patients on the government run Oregon Health Plan (Medicaid).

The Plan limits medical care and treatment for patients with a likelihood of a 5% or less 5-year survival. My patients in that category, who say, have a good chance of living another three years and who want to live, cannot receive surgery, chemotherapy or radiation therapy to obtain that goal. The Plan guidelines state that the Plan will not cover "chemotherapy or surgical interventions with the primary intent to prolong life or alter disease progression." The Plan WILL cover the cost of the patient's suicide.

Barbara Wagner

Under our law, a patient is not supposed to be eligible for voluntary suicide until they are deemed to have six months or less to live. In the well publicized cases of Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup, neither of them had such diagnoses, nor had they asked for suicide. The Plan, nonetheless, offered them suicide.

In Oregon, the mere presence of legal assisted-suicide steers patients to suicide even when there is not an issue of coverage. One of my patients was adamant she would use the law. I convinced her to be treated. Now twelve years later she is thrilled to be alive. I hope that you can avoid Oregon's mistake.

[Support for this letter regarding Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup can be found in these articles: http://www.katu.com/news/26119539.html & http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1 My patient's letter in the Boston Globe describing her then being alive 11 years later can be read here: http://articles.boston.com/2011-10- 04/bostonglobe/30243525_1_suicide-doctor-ballot-initiative]

Barbara Farlow, a great example for everyone who cares about children with disabilities.

Barb & Annie Farlow.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In the past few weeks I have written several articles about how medical professionals are treating (not treating) children who are born Trisomy 13/18.

Children born with Trisomy 13/18, conditions whereby the child has an extra 13 or 18 chromosome, are often considered "incompatible with life." When you learn about Trisomy 13/18 it becomes evident that the label "incompatible with life" is a death sentence because it leaves many parents without hope, when much hope exists.


Barb Farlow has done so much to co-ordinate information and encourage research studies concerning Trisomy 13/18. She got involved in these issues after the birth, and death of her daughter Annie.

Barb has turned a tragic story into positive outcomes for so many caring parents. This is Annie's story. Link to the story of Annie Farlow.


Three weeks ago, a research study was published in the Journal Pediatrics that found parents of children with Trisomy 13/18, considered the child to be happy and found that their lives were enriched by the child.

The research team in the study invited 503 parents of children with a Trisomy 13/18 child to participate in the study. 87% of the parents responded and 332 parents (67%) of 272 children completed the questionnaire.

The parents indicated that their physicians stated to them that:

* 87% their child was incompatible with life,
* 57% their child would live a life of suffering,
* 50% their child would be a vegetable,
* 23% their child would ruin their family.

On the positive side, 60% were told by their medical provider that their child would have a short, but meaningful life.

* 30% of the parents had requested a plan of treatment based on "full intervention."
* 79% of the children who received "full intervention" were alive at the time the questionnaire was sent. Those children were a median age of four years old.
* The survival rates for children with "full Trisomy" 13/18 was 40% lived for at least 1 year while 21% lived to at least age 5.

Half of the parents reported that caring for a child with a disability was harder than they thought it would be and yet 97% of the parents described their child as a happy child and most of the parents indicated that caring for their child had enriched their lives.

Link to the full blog article.

Link to more information about Annie Farlow.
Lilliana lives with Trisomy 18. She is not incompatible with life.

Editorial Policy: I do not publish comments from people who remain Anonymous.

In the past few days I have received several comments from readers and followers of this blog.

A long time ago, I decided that I would not publish comments from people who decided to remain Anonymous. 

I made this decision because sometimes I  received destructive comments from people who were attacking others, or attacking me, without the person willing to put their name to their comments.

I also receive some very good  instructive comments from people who are also remaining Anonymous.

Whether the comment is instructive or destructive, I simply will not publish an Anonymous comment.

Therefore if you want your comments posted on this blog, please post your name with the comment.

Link to my previous comments on not posting Anonymous comments.

If you have any questions, you may contact me (Alex Schadenberg) at: info@epcc.ca.

EPC urges the Government of Canada to appeal the constitutional exemption granting Gloria Taylor death by euthanasia.

For Immediate Release

Link to the decision by Justice Minister Honourable Rob Nicholson to appeal the August 10 decision by Justice Prowse.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) is troubled that the constitutional exemption granted to Gloria Taylor, to die by euthanasia or assisted suicide, was not stayed by the BC court.

Alex Schadenberg, EPC executive director states:

EPC is concerned that this court order may prompt other people with similar conditions to apply for a constitutional exemption to die by euthanasia before the Supreme Court and Parliament have ruled on the matter.

 Hugh Scher, EPC legal counsel comments:

The existing laws prohibiting euthanasia and assisted suicide remain in effect.
 Parliament and the Supreme Court of Canada have endorsed the constitutionality of the law.

 In April 2010, Canada’s parliament overwhelming defeated a bill that would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide.

In 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Canada’s assisted suicide legislation was constitutional.

Dr. Will Johnston, EPC – BC Chair 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.

Alex Schadenberg concludes: 

It is not appropriate for any single judge to over-ride parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law.

EPC urges the Government to appeal the court order that maintains a constitutional exemption for Gloria Taylor to die by euthanasia.

Contact Justice Minister Rob Nicholson at: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/contact/Comm3.html.

For further information

Alex Schadenberg, EPC Executive Director:  (519) 851-1434, info@epcc.ca
Dr. Will Johnston, EPC-BC Chair:                (604) 220-2042, willjohnston@shaw.ca
Hugh Scher, EPC - Legal Counsel:                (416) 816-6115, hugh@sdlaw.ca

Man pleads guilty to manslaughter for "assisting" a suicide death in Virginia

Paul Stephen Bricker (27) pled guilty to a charge of manslaughter in the "suicide" death of  Gerard Curran (45), a navy chief, and a superior of Bricker.

Bricker did not exercise personal gain, or consider Curran's life as being "not worth living" but he did intentionally assist in the suicide of Curran and he may have caused Curran's death. Bricker knowingly stabbed Curran to cover up the suicide death but he also enabled Curran to carry-out his suicide by not reporting his suicidal thoughts and by engaging in his suicide plan.

An article written by Kathy Adams and published in The Virginian Pilot on August 6 stated:

Gerard Curran's life was falling apart.

Gerard Curran

The 45-year-old Navy chief had separated from his wife and moved out of the home they shared with their two sons, according to court testimony. He'd been abusing alcohol, and in April 2009 he stabbed himself in the chest, telling police an intruder attacked him in his home.

Curran became so desperate he pleaded with a junior sailor he mentored to help him end his life, eventually persuading him to make his suicide look like a robbery, according to testimony. He said he wanted to make sure his family would still receive Navy death benefits.

The Virginian Pilot then reported:

Paul Bricker

At first Bricker refused, but then he changed his mind.

"He seemed desperate, like he was running out of time," Bricker testified Monday.

They picked First Landing State Park, where they met July 29, 2009. There, Curran strangled himself with a yellow physical therapy band, according to court testimony. When he passed out, Bricker stabbed him in the chest with his diving knife, gathered his belongings and left, according to testimony.

... (originally) police and an autopsy ruled Curran's death a suicide. They didn't learn the truth until about a year later, when the Naval Criminal Investigative Service led them to Bricker.

Police initially charged Bricker with second-degree murder, but prosecutors agreed to amend the charge to voluntary manslaughter if he pleaded guilty, which he did in April.

Bricker's attorney, Suzanne Moushegian, said Bricker made a mistake but received no benefit from Curran's death. He refused Curran's offer to pay him $5,000, she said. He lost his job with the Navy.

Judge Thomas Padrick

An article written by Rebecca Ruiz and published on NBC news reported Judge Thomas Padrick stating to Bricker:

“You allowed the chief to do what he did, and then you stabbed him. No one has the right to take another’s life," 

The Virginian Pilot concluded the article by reporting the comments of Dawn Curran, Gerard's wife:

Bricker should have reported the death request.

"That's what a real friend would do," she said, reading from a statement and crying. "I find assisted suicide the equivalent to murder."

Judge Thomas Padrick got it right by stating: "No one has the right to take another’s life."

Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide grants - in law - the right of one person, the right, to cause the death of another person.

The only way to protect vulnerable and depressed people, such as Curran, is by maintaining a complete prohibition on euthanasia and assisted suicide. Most people experience a period of extreme grief in their life, but suicide or assisted suicide is not the answer.

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide are outside the discipline of Palliative Medicine.

Press Release: Australian and NZ Society of Palliative Medicine

6 August 2012

Response to TV3 Prime Time program Sunday August 5th:

“We should focus on excellence of hospice and palliative care not euthanasia”

The Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine Inc., (ANZSPM), believes that the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide are outside the discipline of Palliative Medicine. The Society endorses the New Zealand Medical Association’s Position Statement on Euthanasia, and similarly the World Medial Association’s which state that euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide are unethical. This position is not dependent on euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide remaining unlawful. Even if they were to become legal, or decriminalised, the NZMA would continue to regard them as unethical.

Dr Sinead Donnelly, Chair, ANZSPM Aotearoa, said, “Palliative medicine focuses on excellence of care for a person who is dying and their family. It is not the role of doctors to deliberately end the life of a patient. Doctors are trained and educated to care and never to kill”.

“Last night the TV3 60 minute program was completely biased in favour of euthanasia. It did not describe the work of hospice and palliative care doctors and nurses who on a daily basis strive ceaselessly throughout New Zealand to relieve the suffering of people facing imminent death. The national focus should be on achieving and maintaining excellence of palliative care for every person in this country”.

Dr Ian Smiley GP and ANZSPM member said “with good palliative care there is no reason for people to suffer. Doctors are ethically bound to do what they can to ease pain and suffering but that they must strive to "do no harm" and have the utmost respect for human life”.

ANZSPM recommends that a request for euthanasia or assisted suicide be acknowledged with respect and be extensively explored in order to understand, appropriately address and if possible remedy the underlying difficulties that gave rise to the request. Appropriate ongoing care consistent with the goals of Palliative Medicine should continue to be offered.

ANZSPM recommends that when requests for euthanasia or assisted suicide arise, particular attention be given to gaining good symptom control, utilising the skills of a multidisciplinary team.

ANZSPM believes that if treatment appropriately titrated to relieve symptoms has a secondary and unintended consequence of hastening death, then that is not euthanasia.

Dr Donnelly said, “Patients have the right to refuse life sustaining treatments, but that refusing such treatments does not constitute euthanasia.”

The Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine (ANZSPM) is a society of medical practitioners who practice or have an interest in palliative medicine. The full ANZSPM position statement on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide can be found at: Link.

Paul Russell

Comment from Paul Russell, the founder and leader of HOPE Australia: The Australian & New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine responded to a story run on New Zealand TV on August 5. (60 Minutes program on TV3 story: "Fixing to Die"). To say that the show lacked objectivity would be an understatement. 

DWD newsletter accuses the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of lying.

By: Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In the June 2012 edition of the Dying with Dignity newsletter, Wanda Morris, the executive director of Dying with Dignity states that EPC bases its arguments on Lies, Damn Lies and fear mongering.

Morris ought to look in the mirror when she accuses EPC of lying or fear mongering.

When I debated Morris in Saskatoon, she gave a false explanation of the Nancy B case in 1992. She didn't know that the case was a respirator case and that Nancy B had Guillan Barre Syndrome. As for Fear Mongering, Morris based her arguments on stories of people who suffered terrible deaths and inferred that people have two choices, legalizing assisted suicide or dying with pain and suffering. This is a false equation. Further to that, she constantly referred to people who oppose euthanasia and assisted suicides as religious. (I guess it is easier to label the opponent than to debate the opponent).

She spoke about a farmer who blew his head off with a gun and other horrific stories.

Further to that, when I was explaining the results of a study that concluded that 32% of all euthanasia deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium were without request or consent, she stated that this was my study. I responded that the study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal - May 2010.

I knew that I was doing well in the debate when Morris stated that I lacked compassion because I opposed euthanasia and assisted suicide in all circumstances. Low blow Wanda, too bad it proved to the audience that you were getting desperate.

Morris wasn't attempting to debate me, but rather she was trying to scare the audience with her horrific stories knowing that most Canadians who support euthanasia and assisted suicide do so out of fear of suffering. She claims that EPC focuses on fear-mongering and not facts. During the debate she was nearly crying while reading one of her stories and she had few facts to share with the audience.

Morris states in the June 2012 DWD newsletter:

"Or take the case of the EPC's Alex Schadenberg in a guest editorial to the National Post. For example, he described how certain individuals had been assisted to die without their consent in the Netherlands. He failed to disclose that the percentage of deaths without consent in The Netherlands had actually gone down since legalization and was significantly lower than countries such as New Zealand and Australia, which did not have legalized assistance to die. Don't newspapers have to check the truth of what they publish, even if in a guest editorial?" (Sorry for the grammatical errors, I was copying her comment word for word).

Did I lie in my article that was published in the National Post? Link to the article.

My article in the National Post did not refer to the deaths without request or consent statistics in the Netherlands which indicate that there were 950 deaths without request or consent in 2001, 550 deaths without request or consent in 2005 and 310 deaths without request or consent in 2010. 

My article refered to the Belgium statistics that conclude that 32% of all euthanasia deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium are without request or consent.

I did refer to a study from the Netherlands that was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that concluded that people with a depressed mood were 4.1 times more likely to request euthanasia. The depression study from the Netherlands did not reference the issue of deaths without request or consent.

I guess it is Morris that is lying in her newsletter or maybe she responded to my article without reading it, such as her comment about Nancy B in the Saskatoon debate.

I could go on, but what is most galling is her reference to Professor Margaret Pabst-Battin, a long-time euthanasia advocate who published a false study in 2007 concerning safeguards in the Netherlands and in Oregon.

Morris states in the June 2012 DWD newsletter:

Professor Margaret Pabst-Battin led a team of researchers that looked in detail at the deaths in both these jurisdictions (Netherlands and Oregon) and concluded that the safeguards are indeed working. There will always be polarized views on both sides of the discussion - what we can and must do is educate the neutrals about facts - not overblown fears. We will continue to do so.

Wanda Morris

DWD and Wanda Morris need to stick to the facts. Their tactics are to find the most extreme and emotionally upsetting stories, to deny the facts about what is occurring in the jurisdictions where it is legal, to deny the reality of how legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide can result in the death of others, such as people who are: depressed, social devalued, victims of elder abuse, etc.

They then accuse us of lying. Morris needs to look into the mirror and she needs to be very careful with making false and misleading statements about EPC and others.

P.S. - The only religious zealot that debated in Saskatoon was Morris. I did not bring up any issues related to faith or ethics, I only debated the facts.

Who has the right to decide when to withdraw medical treatment.

Today, there are two court decisions from two countries both dealing with a similar question, that being, who has the right to decide when to withdraw medical treatment.

 

The first case, decided by the Consent and Capacity board in Ontario, concerns a 90 year-old man, referred to as GS, who is a survivor of the Nazi Holocaust, was a victim of a car accident and has been in coma for the past 20 months.

An Ottawa hospital was given the right, against the wishes of the family, to withhold aggressive measures, but the hospital did agree to continue life-sustaining measures until he died a natural death.

The Ottawa Citizen reported that:

GS’s daughter, who had often been in disagreement with medical staff about her father’s hospital care, opposed the plan.

GS’s daughter and three grandsons all testified that although GS could not speak, he recognized them during visits and showed signs of happiness. She suggested her father did not react the same way with doctors and nurses because he feared they were trying to kill him.

The family described GS as a religiously observant Jew, a disciplined man with a strict health regime and a fighting spirit. GS’s daughter noted that her father, an immigrant from Romania, had successfully recovered from hip surgery and two heart surgeries before his car accident. (He worked as an engineer in Montreal before retirement.)

The board also heard about the existence of a power of attorney document signed by GS in April 2010. In it, GS expressed his wish that his life not be prolonged under certain circumstances: if he’s in an irreversible coma; if he’s terminally ill and life-sustaining procedures will only delay his death; or if the burden of a treatment outweighs its expected benefits.

First: This is not a case of euthanasia. Heroic measures and burdensome testing is being withheld but life-sustaining treatment, such as hydration and nutrition are not being withheld from GS. In other words, this decision is not attempting to withdraw treatment, but rather withhold treatment that is deemed unnecessary.

Second: If the family is upset by the decision they should appeal the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Third: The question of who has the right to decide is significant in these cases because doctors are required to obtain consent, in Ontario, before they can implement a treatment plan.

The problem that the family may have in this case is that GS has signed a Power of Attorney document that basically states that the doctors medical treatment decision is acceptable. Whether or not someone intends what their Power of Attorney document states, once it has been signed, it is a legal document.

People who are concerned about these issues need to order the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The Second case is that of a child in the UK, known as baby X, who is believed to be in a coma. Baby X had a traumatic accident in May 2012 that is believed to have caused an irreversible brain injury.

Justice Hedley decided that it was appropriate to withdraw the ventilator from Baby X and that treating  Baby X with palliative care was an appropriate decision, even though this decision is against the consent of the parents. Justice Hedley also decided that life-sustaining treatment, presumably hydration and nutrition, should be continued indefinitely.

First: This is not a case of euthanasia. This is a very difficult case to access, because Baby X is likely to die after the ventilator is withdrawn but Baby X may survive and continue breathing. Hydration and nutrition appears that it is not being withheld from Baby X.

Two: The judge did agree to a plan of treatment, that being palliative care. I am not sure whether the parents have consented to this treatment plan but it is clear that they are not consenting to the withdrawal of the ventilator.

Third: The question of who has the right to decide is paramount in this case. The judge has provided consent to a treatment plan against the consent of the parents. Baby X is unable to consent to treatment therefore the wishes of the parents is normally upheld as the substitute decision makers.

It is important to note that doctors are not obligated to provide medical treatment that the doctor considers to be futile, burdensome or outside the parameters of the normal medical standard.

These cases clearly show that a tension exists between the right of the physician to refuse to provide treatment, that the physician deems to be futile, and the rights of a person to receive treatment, that is believed to be beneficial, or respects the faith of the person or the substitute decision maker.

The contention is whether or not the parents preferred treatment plan is in the best interests of Baby X. Since the death of Baby X is the likely result of the withdrawal of the ventilator, therefore, the wishes of the parents should be respected, but limited. The doctors cannot be forced to provide treatment that is considered futile.

Justice Hedley should have decided to limit his decision to withholding aggressive medical treatment, in a similar manner as the Ottawa decision. Consent would not be given when or if Baby X required further medical intervention. Natural death would then occur without infringing upon the rights and religious beliefs of the parents who only wish to care for their child.

Why do people support assisted suicide?

A recent Angus Reid poll found that 80% of Canadians support legalizing assisted suicide.

My first response is related to the way the poll was done. This is an online poll.

The Angus Reid poll leads me to ask the question, why do people support doctor-assisted suicide?

Previous polling that the Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) did found that most people support assisted suicide because they fear dying in pain or experiencing uncontrolled symptoms. Susan Eng, a spokesperson for CARP stated: 

 "What they're actually telling (us) is they're afraid of a bad death. They're afraid that when the end comes and it gets ugly, that they're in terrible pain or lose all their dignity, that they don't have a way out. More emphasis needs to be put on palliative care" 

Previous polls also showed that many people somewhat supported assisted suicide, but very few people strongly supported assisted suicide.

People are responding to the fear of experiencing uncontrolled pain by stating they support assisted suicide.

A recent Environics poll asked a different question. They were asked: Should Canadian governments put a higher priority on improving access to palliative care. 71% of Canadians thought that governments should place a greater priority on providing access to good palliative care rather than legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide.

PCPCC Press Conference.

Further to that, the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care (PCPCC) released their report - Not to be Forgotten - in November 2011. That report identified areas within end-of-life care, elder abuse and suicide prevention, that would enable a greater level of care and support for all Canadians.

Some of the recommendations from the PCPCC report are being implemented, but there is much more that can be done to support Canadians.

The real answer is to care for the needs of Canadians who are living with terminal conditions, chronic pain or disabilities; rather than legalizing physician assisted suicide, that ends the life of the person rather than helping a person live until they die.

Physician-assisted suicide “in direct conflict” with doctor’s role

The following article was published in White Coat News, a part of the Boston Globe, under the title: Dr. Barbara Rockett: Physician-assisted suicide “in direct conflict” with doctor’s role

Dr. Barbara Rockett

Dr. Barbara Rockett - Newton-Wellesley Hospital, is a former president of the Massachusetts Medical Society. White Coat News - July 31, 2012.

Physicians, in their care of patients, must establish a physician-patient relationship based on mutual trust and respect to be able to render the best care to their patients. Centuries ago the physician Hippocrates wrote the Hippocratic Oath, which many of us took when we became physicians and guides us in the ethical practice of medicine. It states that when treating patients, physicians will “First do no harm.” It goes on to state that “I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked nor suggest any such counsel.” Physician-assisted suicide is in direct conflict with this statement which, when followed, has protected the patient, physician, society and the family, and at the same time has committed doctors to compassion and human dignity.

As a practicing physician, I have cared for many patients throughout their lives, extending through to their last days of life. Their needs must be honored and their dignity preserved, which might require alleviation of pain, treatment of depression if it exists, as well as support for them and their families. Palliative or hospice care must be offered when appropriate.

I was impressed with the courage and fortitude of many in wheelchairs and on canes and on crutches who might require this care and who testified before the Judiciary Committee at the State House in opposition to physician-assisted suicide. We physicians must assure them that we will always be there to protect them and administer the care that they might require.

It has been demonstrated that the highest cost of medical care exists in the last six months of life. We must resist advocating for physician-assisted suicide as an alternative to spending money caring for these patients. We as physicians must avoid the so-called slippery slope of attempting to save money by doing less for our patients rather than rendering the proper care to them. To substitute physician-assisted suicide for care represents an abandonment of the patient by the physician.

Massachusetts has had the outstanding reputation of training medical students, residents, and fellows in the care of patients. Let’s not put a blemish on that reputation by advocating for physician-assisted suicide.

The present initiative does not require that the physician be present when the patient takes the medicine, so there is no guarantee that the patient will ever receive it.

One of the most difficult and often inadequate determinations that a physician has to make is the attempt to predict when a patient might die. An example of this occurred when my husband, a neurosurgeon, saw a patient who had been operated on by the renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Harvey Cushing for the most malignant type of brain tumor. The surgery was followed by radiation therapy. He was told that he had six months to live, so he spent his savings doing all the things he had hoped to do in life. When the six months were over, he could not get a job, he could not get insurance, and he was very upset that he was given a bad prognosis. That was 40 years before my husband saw him. Thinking that the diagnosis might have been incorrect, pathologists reviewed the slides and applied all the modern techniques, only to find that the original diagnosis was absolutely correct. He did, in fact, have the most malignant type of brain tumor. Although this is a rare case and illustrates the exception to the rule, it shows that exceptions can occur and that there are outliers to the statistics.

More than 75 percent of the physician members of the Massachusetts Medical Society have voted to oppose physician-assisted suicide. Since their meeting in 1999, the members of the American Medical Association have voted to oppose physician-assisted suicide and have been consistent in their opposition, stating, “The AMA opposes physician-assisted suicide as antithetical to the role of the physician as healer. We are committed to providing the best end-of-life care.” At a meeting in 2003, the AMA went on to state, “Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would impose serious societal risks.”

The Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine has imposed a requirement on physicians seeking to be licensed in Massachusetts that they must complete a course in end-of-life care and another in opioid prescribing. These courses educate the physician in the compassionate, considerate, and supportive care that must be offered to patients at the end of life. Reasonable prescribing of opioids should be offered only when necessary and should not be substituted for other needs such as treatment of depression.

Dr. Lonnie Bristow, former president of the AMA, has made the following statement:

“There is a great deal of concern in this nation about the issue of physician-assisted suicide. It is important, in fact, incumbent among the American Medical Association to spell out its position on this important issue. Just what is our position? Simply put, we oppose it. We believe that physician-assisted suicide is unethical, it is fundamentally inconsistent with the pledge that physicians make to devote themselves to healing and to life. We believe laws sanctioning physician-assisted suicide serve to undermine the foundation of the patient-physician relationship, which is grounded in the patient’s trust that the physician is working wholeheartedly for the patient’s health and welfare.”

Physician-assisted suicide has been falsely advertised as death with dignity. Believe me, there is nothing dignified about suicide. I ask the voters of this Commonwealth, as they enter the voting booth, to vote for dignity for life and not for death. Please vote no on physician-assisted suicide.

Dr. Barbara A.Rockett is a physician at Newton-Wellesley Hospital and former president of the Massachusetts Medical Society. This is one of two posts about the Death with Dignity Act. Please also see the opposing post by Dr. Marcia Angell. 

This is the link to the pro-assisted suicide article that preceded this article.

Assisted Suicide - US Overview.

By Margaret Dore,

Margaret Dore

There are two states where physician-assisted suicide is legal: Oregon and Washington. In these states, statutes give criminal and civil immunity to doctors and others, including family members, who participate in a patient's suicide under certain conditions. Oregon's act was enacted via a ballot initiative in 1997. Washington's act was enacted via a ballot initiative in 2008 and went into effect in 2009.

No such law has made it through the scrutiny of a legislature despite more than 100 attempts.

The Oregon and Washington assisted-suicide acts are similar. They apply to "terminal" patients, defined in terms of having less than six months to live. Such persons are not necessarily dying. Consider, for example, Jeanette Hall, now alive 12 years after her terminal diagnosis. More recent proposals to legalize assisted suicide have included people who are clearly not dying. Click  here, here and here.  

In Montana, Baxter v. State gives doctors who assist a patient's suicide a potential defense to prosecution for homicide. Baxter does not legalize assisted suicide by giving doctors or anyone else immunity from criminal and civil liability although proponents argue that this is the case. Click here and here. 

In Montana, the leading group against assisted suicide is Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity.

On July 17, 2012, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld its law criminalizing assisted suicide as constitutional. To view the court's opinion, click here.

In 2012, Georgia and Louisiana strengthened their laws against assisted suicide. To see Georgia's new statute, click here. To learn more about Louisiana's statute, click here and here.  

In July 2011, Idaho enacted a statute strengthening its law against assisted suicide. For more information, click here.

In 2011, bills to legalize physician-assisted suicide were defeated in Montana, Hawaii and New Hampshire. In Vermont, identical legalization bills were introduced in the House and Senate, but not put on for vote before the legislative session ended. In 2012, these same bills died in committee. For more information see Vermont Against Assisted Suicide.

In Hawaii, where a bill to legalize assisted suicide was defeated in 2011 as well as in prior years, proponents claimed that assisted suicide was legal due to a 1909 statute. On December 8, 2011, the Attorney General of Hawaii  rejected this claim via a formal legal opinion. See also Hawaii Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity.

In Connecticut, a lawsuit to legalize physician-assisted suicide was dismissed in 2010. There is now a similar lawsuit pending in New Mexico.

In Massachusetts, there is a pending ballot initiative to enact an Oregon/ Washington style act that applys to "terminal" patients defined as predicted to have less than six months to live. For more information, see Mass Against Assisted Suicide.

Utah has also been targeted by assisted-suicide/euthanasia proponents. See Utah Against Assisted Suicide: "Choice" is an Illusion.

Don't make Oregon's Mistake: Assisted suicide should not be legal.

The following letter was written by Jeanette Hall from Oregon and printed in the Ottawa Citizen on July 24 2012 in response to the following article: Does the renewed debate on doctor-assisted suicide say anything about the sanctity of life in modern times? July 21.

I live in Oregon where assisted suicide is legal. In 2000, I was diagnosed with cancer and told I had six months to a year to live. I knew that our law had passed. Indeed, I had voted for it. But I didn't know exactly how to go about doing it. I tried to ask my doctor, but he didn't really answer me. In hindsight, I can see that he was stalling me. 

On my third visit, he asked me how my son would feel if I went forward with my plan. I didn't know what to say. I agreed to be treated. I had both chemotherapy and radiation. I am so happy to be alive. 

It is now 12 years later. If my doctor had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead. I thank him and all my doctors for helping me choose "life with dignity." Assisted suicide should not be legal. Don't make Oregon's mistake. 

Jeanette Hall, King City, Oregon

Hope for Lilliana - Lilliana lives with Trisomy 18. She is not "Incompatible with Life"

Lilliana on her first birthday.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The most recent edition of the show Facing Life Head-On - entitled Hope for Lilliana, focuses on the life of Lilliana Dennis, a one-year old child with Trisomy 18 who is living a miraculous life.

Children with Trisomy 18 are often considered "Incompatible with Life" and therefore denied medical treatment. Parents are usually discouraged from treating children with Trisomy 18 and most of these children do not live beyond their first year of life.

Lilliana is proving that Trisomy 18 is not a death sentence, and with the proper care children with Trisomy 13/18 can thrive and live a happy life. Link to the program.

A recent study published in the current edition of the Journal Paediatrics questioned parents who have children with Trisomy 13/18. The study confirmed that the parents of children with Trisomy 13/18 considered their child to be happy and found that their lives were enriched by their child.

Link to a recent article about the Journal Paediatrics study.

The research team invited 503 parents of children who had a Trisomy 13/18 child to participate in the study. 87% of the parents responded and 332 parents (67%) of 272 children completed the questionnaire.

The parents indicated that their physicians stated to them that:

* 87% their child was incompatible with life,
* 57% their child would live a life of suffering,
* 50% their child would be a vegetable,
* 23% their child would ruin their family.

On the positive side, 60% were told by their medical provider that their child would have a short, but meaningful life.

Barbara Farlow with daughter Annie.

* 30% of the parents had requested a plan of treatment based on "full intervention."
* 79% of the children who received "full intervention" were alive at the time the questionnaire was sent. Those children were a median age of four years old.
* The survival rates for children with "full Trisomy" 13/18 was 40% lived for at least 1 year while 21% lived to at least age 5.

Half of the parents reported that caring for a child with a disability was harder than they thought it would be and yet 97% of the parents described their child as a happy child and most of the parents indicated that caring for their child had enriched their lives.

Last May, I came across the story of Lilliana Dennis. Lilliana Dennis is proving that Trisomy 13/18 is not a death sentence.  

Link to my first article about Lilliana Dennis.

Link to the Facing Life Head-On episode - Hope for Lilliana.

Link to a recent article about the Journal Paediatrics study.