Physician speaks on Oregon experience of assisted suicide

An excellent article that was written by Christopher Pineo and published today in the Boston Pilot entitled: Physician speaks on Oregon experience of assisted suicide.

Dr. Kenneth Stevens

Dr. Kenneth Stevens, the Vice-President of the Oregon based group - Physicians for Compassionate Care, recently spoke at a conference concerning his personal experience with legal assisted suicide in his state of Oregon.

The article started by reporting on an experience Stevens had with one of his patients. The article stated:

Twelve years ago, a patient visited Dr. Kenneth Stevens after being diagnosed with a form of cancer that would kill her in six months without treatment, seeking drugs to end her life. Over a course of the next few weeks Dr. Stevens spoke to her about other options. 

"If my doctor had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead. I thank him and all my doctors for helping me to choose 'life with dignity.' Assisted suicide should not be legal. I hope Massachusetts does not make this terrible mistake," she wrote in a 2011 letter to the Boston Globe.

The article states that Stevens, who is an oncologist with 46 years experience, first focused on the language of the debate. The article stated:

"The legalization of physician assisted suicide does not give any new rights to the patient. They say, 'I want a right to die.' Well, you are going to die. You already have that right. Its purpose is to legally protect doctors who write prescriptions for lethal drugs," he said. 

He said clearly defining the issue should remain at the center of the effort to fight physician assisted suicide. 

"It is important to use proper language. It is physician-assisted suicide. That's what it is," he said. 

He said attempts to legitimize or legalize physician assisted suicide are based in the language of driving an agenda not promoting the development of healthcare or patient needs.

Stevens was then quoted for his comments on the campaign the occurred in Oregon and how Compassion & Choices has been able to gain support for assisted suicide in Oregon. Stevens stated:

...it was passed as a result of a campaign led by what was once called the Hemlock Society, which has taken up the name Compassion and Choices after merging with other organizations in recent years. 

"They are leading the campaign here. They use euphemisms to distort the truth. They use double-speak," he said. 

He said traditional groups in the field of medicine make clear distinctions regarding the issue of physician assisted suicide. 

"The American Medical Association code of ethics also says that 'allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good. Physician assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer,'" he said, quoting the AMA's Code of Medical Ethics. 

He said physician assisted suicide laws in Oregon have breached the trust between doctors and patients when other factors become involved. 

"Assisted suicide has turned medicine upside down. There can be no safe haven, no safe harbor for a patient when the doctor may kill them. We don't care for patients by killing them," he said.

Stevens then speaks about how legalizing assisted suicide changes doctors, he stated:

Dr. Stevens said that beyond uprooting the traditional values regarding life, the laws can degrade care for patients. 

"Assisted suicide leads to the dumbing down of medicine," he said. 

He said no skill is required to write a prescription for life ending drugs, taking the focus off of the doctor's role in determining a solution to sometimes simple medical issues. 

In his role as an educator he also must anticipate the needs of students. 

"As we interview prospective students we don't usually ask, 'Do you want to go into medicine to kill people?' That's not what we ask," he said. 

He said implementation of these laws can create a niche for physicians who make lethal treatments a kind of speciality. 

"There was a report from a state agency where from 2001 to 2007, 109 doctors --which is about 1 percent of Oregon doctors-- wrote 271 fatal prescriptions. Of those 271 fatal prescriptions, about a fourth of them where written by only three doctors," he said.

Barbara Wagner

Stevens then spoke about the cases of Barbara Wagner. He stated:

He also addressed the inherent danger of laws supporting physician assisted suicide wherein the expense of treatment becomes a factor in determining which care should be available to which patients. He pointed out that the elderly, infirm and disabled come under threat in this way. 

He presented the case of a woman denied experimental chemotherapy treatment under her health plan, but approved for assisted suicide.

Dr Stevens concluded his presentation with the following remarks:

"It is an ideology that a patient should be able to take their own life with a doctor's assistance," he said. 

"The legalization of assisted suicide is anti-science. It is against medical care. It's against scientific medicine," Dr. Stevens said.

Dr Kenneth Stevens has tirelessly worked to expose the reality of assisted suicide. It is important that people in Massachusetts  listen to his experience and vote NO on question 2 in Massachusetts in November.

Foul Justice - Robert Latimer to promote "mercy killing" at Oxford University.

Inclusive Humanity is an excellent source of news opinion and issues related to disability. A few days ago, Inclusive Humanity published the following article under the title: Foul Justice. Link to the Inclusive Humanity website.

Foul Justice: Something Rotten in the State of Our Criminal Justice System

Something has happened in the universe. There has been some kind of upending between right and wrong and while I normally really like to play in the grey between black and white, there is something sinister and covert about a recent turn of events that I want you all to be aware of.

According to the Globe and Mail, Robert Latimer has been granted special dispensation from the Parole Board of Canada allowing him to travel outside of Canada -skirting the the normal limits Canada’s parole guidelines.

Moreover he has been granted this privilege in order to be a guest panelist at an Oxford University event in England debating the merits of “mercy killing” and end of life ethics.

Tracy Latimer

So essentially here is how this plays out. This man who admitted to murdering hid daughter Tracy because of the pain widely assumed she was experiencing due most significantly to the fact Tracy was living with Cerebral Palsy, has been granted the right to travel to a foreign country to sit on a panel as an “expert” by the very legal system in Canada that deemed his actions illegal and punishable by conviction and imprisonment. The very criminal justice system that convicted him is now allowing him to travel to one of the most prestigious universities in the world to “make the case” for mercy killing of the disabled.

Have I missed anything? Unfortunately not.

Approximately a year ago I was invited to prepare a brief and present it to the Inter-Parliamentary Committee on End of Life and Compassionate Care in this country. I was honored to be asked to speak specifically to the concerns of citizens with disabilities and their families about the dangerous paradigm of being vulnerable in a medical scarcity paradigm, in which time and time again, it has been proven that many in community see the ending of life as the only appropriate response to disability.

I guess Canada’s parole board didn’t read the committee’s report. Oh wait, that’s right, the report finally published failed to include the “disability perspective” in it’s narrative. It is rumoured to be published at a “latter date”.

I figure they better hurry up… soon it will be to late for all of us.

Paul Russell: Do not cross the clear bright line.

The following is the text of the speech by Paul Russell in Aberdeen Scotland. Paul Russell is the founder and leader of HOPE Australia.

Paul Russell

Australia was the first nation to legalize euthanasia & assisted suicide back in 1995 in the Northern Territory. We then became the only country to overturn such legislation a year later.

Since that time the issue has been debated repeatedly in various states, especially in my home state of South Australia where, in the current parliament alone five bills have been introduced with another two slated for the spring sitting which is currently underway.

In most of these bills we have seen both euthanasia and assisted suicide included in the legislative package. Repeatedly, and supposedly against the tide of public opinion, our parliaments have rejected such legislation.

In 1998 the Tasmanian Parliament undertook an inquiry into the issue. There was no bill pending at that time, so this was a wide ranging inquiry on the issue in general terms. They found that the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia would pose a serious threat to the more vulnerable members of society and that the obligation of the state to protect all its members equally outweighs the individual’s freedom to choose voluntary euthanasia.

What is at issue here is the way society responds to concerns at the end-of-life and, more specifically the appropriateness of euthanasia & assisted suicide as a compassionate response. Even in the pursuit of our right to make our own choices, to take control of our own circumstances we must ever be mindful of the effect that such pursuits have or may have on the fundamental rights of others to be treated equally.

Euthanasia & assisted suicide legislation will put some people in circumstances where they may be abused, where their rights may be compromised. Euthanasia & assisted suicide legislation cannot be made safe.

What we’re talking about is legislating to allow people to kill other people.

Unless you’re posing a serious and present threat to my life, I can’t kill you. That’s a good thing. We all enjoy this protection in law equally, every one of us.

But, now we’re saying that it’s okay for someone else to kill you and to be involved in your death.

That is the fundamental issue: we will be making an exception to the Criminal Code that changes the laws on homicide. That is serious stuff.

We’d be creating a right for someone else to kill us or, to put it another way, a right to be killed.

We’re clearly talking about rights now. But what would be the nature of this right? Firstly and fore mostly it would be a ‘human right’. After all we’re not talking about our pet hamster.

Human Rights have universal application. Human Rights intrinsically apply to all people in all places at all times – that’s their nature. I don’t believe that this is a human right, but that’s effectively what it would become.

So all this talk of limiting the scope of such legislation to sub sets of the human family such as the terminally ill for example is baloney.  We can’t create such a right and then expect to legitimately limit its application.

But that’s precisely what almost every bill I have ever seen has attempted to do. People may genuinely believe that their bill should only ever apply to a limited number of people in limited severe circumstances. However, insurmountable problems exist both in the framing of these limiting factors and associated safeguards (so-called) and in the consideration of the implications of the right to be killed as a universal.

The Dutch passed euthanasia legislation in 2002. From 1984 the Dutch courts began to extend euthanasia to people living with chronic depression (mental pain); later to children who were born with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups. The 2002 legislation sought to codify the court rulings and to regulate the practice.

Euthanasia practice in the Netherlands now includes access for teenagers (with or without parental consent) to people with Alzheimer’s (for whom the ability to give informed consent has diminished) and to people experiencing loneliness.

In 2005 there were 550 cases of euthanasia in the Netherlands without request or consent. In 2010 the figure was 310. Wow! It’s getting better! Cold comfort for the 310 perhaps! In the Flanders region of Belgium request or consent was absent in 32% of cases.

Informed consent is absolutely necessary for any medical procedure – it is notably absent here – and yet there have been no prosecutions. For those people who died that way, a fundamental human right to make their own choices has been denied.

In 2005, 20% of Dutch euthanasia deaths were not reported. In 2010 this rose to about 23%. In the Flanders region of Belgium only 52.8% of euthanasia deaths were reported in 2007.

Recently the Dutch created mobile euthanasia teams to ‘meet unfulfilled need’ in the community by visiting people where they live. One press statement suggested that this was partly about where the local doctor had refused euthanasia to a patient. The thought of vulnerable or frail people being euthanased in their homes where the possibility that they might be pressured by a relative to ‘do-the-right-thing’, which cannot be discounted or accounted for, really shook me.

Most recently, Right-to-Die-Netherlands endorsed a website that has, as part of its agenda, the scrapping of the law against non-medical people being involved in assisted suicides. The standard, if you can call it that, of medical involvement at least gives a nod to the idea that a dispassionate and professional third party has some chance of protection against abuse. This is perhaps the last hurdle.

I’m reminded of a comment Philip Nitschke made at one of the debates we’ve had in respect to the Dutch where he said that he felt that they were quite wedded to their legislation. And I think he’s right. But why?

The only valid conclusion, I believe is that the Dutch by and large see the right to be killed as exactly that: a universal right. Little-by-little over more than two decades they’ve seen the expansion of euthanasia to more and more circumstances, to more and more people. In that context, the mobile units give people access to their so-called ‘human right’ to be killed.

I’d like you to think this through with me: If, for example, the latest bill to be defeated in South Australia had been successful in its attempt to limit the application to people in the terminal phase of a terminal illness, how long do you think it would be before someone who was not at that final stage piped up and said:That’s not fair, I want to die too! I’m being discriminated against!

And what if that bill had passed and then we began another debate in which someone put an amendment to broaden the extent of euthanasia & assisted suicide to another sub set of the community: would we then be debating whether or not a ‘right to be killed’ is justified under our law? No, we will have already accepted that principle in passing the earlier bill. We’d only then be debating the merits or otherwise of including others.

Such a debate would effectively be a foregone conclusion – there would be no rational reason for denying that right to a particular group; to argue this way would be totally illogical not to mention discriminatory.

Make no mistake: crossing the clear bright line here is never a matter of partially crossing – cross for some and we cross for all.

In respect to safeguards and limiting factors: their purpose is simply to help make us and our legislators feel a little less uncomfortable about legislating for killing. That’s about it.

In the last Western Australian debate MP Robin Chapple said that he knew his restricted bill wouldn’t please everyone but that it was a ‘good start’. This clearly implies that someone else can come back and try to amend and expand it at some future moment. Sir Terry Pratchett who funded the Falconer Inquiry in the UK bemoaned the fact that the final recommendations didn’t go far enough.  In 2010 in South Australia, MP Mark Parnell observed in reflection upon the failure of his own bill, that too many safeguards would make any bill too restrictive and inaccessible; the corollary of this stark admission is that to make a bill work we must accept an increasing level of risk from abuse.

British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics in 1994 which concluded that it was impossible to set secure limits on voluntary euthanasia:

to create an exception to the general prohibition of intentional killing would inevitably open the way to its further erosion whether by design, by inadvertence, or by the human tendency to test the limits of any regulation.

Let’s look at it from another angle. In many bills we’ve seen that two doctors need to examine the patient and complete forms. What if this wasn’t done? Would the responsible doctor be charged with homicide? No, he or she might simply say that they’d done all the prerequisite checks but simply hadn’t done the paperwork. That might be true, but it might not be true – who would ever know – the principal witness is dead. Let’s face it, they would probably get some kind of reprimand or fine for not filing the correct forms where the reality might be that they’ve gotten away with murder! In the Netherlands it is acknowledged that some of the under reporting is due to the fact that some doctors do see killing a patient as a law-given right rejecting any necessity at all for reporting.

Of course, there is a way around the possibility of legislation being extended in the manner II have described. Simply do like the Dutch have done and express the legislation so broadly that everyone can be included on the subjective basis of ‘hopeless suffering’.

There will always be people whom, for whatever reason, have a diminished ability to stand up for themselves or who suffer some significant ailment that makes even the basics of daily living difficult.

Counter to that we find a straightforward dismissal of this reality from some in the pro-camp. You will often hear it said that vulnerable people are not over represented in the deaths in Oregon, The Netherlands and in Belgium. This statement leans heavily on a study by a pro-euthanasia & assisted suicide activist academic who came to this conclusion on the basis that most related deaths in those places were for people with good incomes, people who were white and who had above average levels of education.

What is being suggested here? Firstly we’re being asked to accept the fact that such people are not, as a socio-economic demographic, ever likely to be vulnerable. But secondly, we’re also being asked to accept the corollary that vulnerable people are generally non-white, poor and under educated. You can draw your own conclusions about that assumption; for me, I find such a racial and class-based inference intolerable.

Vulnerability makes no distinctions. Yes, certain groups within our communities do feel concerned about euthanasia & assisted suicide because within their cohort there will always be a higher number of people for whom life pose some significant challenges; I think of people living with disabilities, like my son, Joseph for example. But the reality is that all of us, at some stage of life and in some circumstances can experience vulnerability.

People who receive a diagnosis of cancer are 12.6 times more likely to commit suicide. People with depression are 4.1 times more likely to request euthanasia. This isn’t rocket science, is it? I think we all understand that. And some of us will have experienced something of that - myself included.

In his recent article for CNN, Dr. Charles Raison, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona said: In fact, even psychiatrists have a difficult time predicting when someone is at heightened risk for suicide. That’s worth thinking about in terms of changing the laws here. This renders any inclusion of a psychiatric opinion almost worthless.

We know too, that the worldwide phenomenon of Elder Abuse is a serious and growing concern: where elderly people are preyed upon, usually by people who care for them – often a family member; that such abuse includes financial, sexual, physical and emotion abuse. These people need and deserve protection.

It is estimated that about 5% of people over the age of 65 experience some form of Elder Abuse. In Queensland alone the reported 30,000 cases per year is only part of the story because Elder Abuse is significantly under reported. It is a growing problem in all western nations and is being called in some quarters, the crime of the century.

In the years ahead we will be entering the time of the largest wealth transfer ever experienced in history when the wealthiest generation the world has ever known begins to pass away. In the US, elder abuse for financial gain is already being termed ‘inheritance impatience’ in some places. The implicit and possibly explicit pressure for elders to ‘do the right thing’ cannot be dismissed and can only intensify.

Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide could well provide legal cover for the ultimate in Elder Abuse and who would ever know?

Recall the words of the Tasmanian Inquiry when they found that the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia would pose a serious threat to the more vulnerable members of society and that the obligation of the state to protect all its members equally outweighs the individual’s freedom to choose voluntary euthanasia.

The criminal code prohibiting homicide protects us all equally. With euthanasia & assisted suicide legislation we begin to treat some sections of our community unequally; we begin to put some at risk of abuse. And for some the advent of such legislation may create thoughts that they’re ‘better off dead’ that their lives are of less value than others.

None of us wants ever to be in a position where our only defence is to rely on the law. But if we ever are, we’ll all want those laws to be there to protect us.

How many people would be abused under any change in the laws? I can’t say. But what we can say is that whenever we talk about the statistics we’re talking about real people. If the law failed to protect one person then it’s a bad law.

This type of legislation deals with life and death; that’s a far more serious a matter than our parliaments usually deal with and if we are to retain equal protection of the lives of all citizens we need to take this very seriously.

Ultimately, euthanasia & assisted suicide law is bad law because it fails to protect people. Equality is honoured and served by maintaining the current laws. Our abiding instincts to be compassionate can and should be expressed, but compassion is about bringing care and relief to people suffering, not to eliminate the sufferer. I think we can do much better than that.

Jack Kevorkian comes to town

Thank you to True Dignity Vermont for posting this excellent article opposing assisted suicide by Boston Globe columnist Tom Keane. It was originally published in the Boston Globe on Auguest 26 and can be read online at: http://articles.boston.com/2012-08-26/opinion/33383823_1_suicide-jack-kevorkian-terminal-illness.

The article responds to the fact that Massachusetts citizens will be voting on an assisted suicide initiative in the November election.

True Dignity Vermont responded this way:

Massachusetts Medical Society opposes Assisted Suicide ballot question

The following is the message from the Massachusetts Medical Society opposing Question 2 on the November ballot, the assisted suicide ballot question. Link to the document from the Massachusetts Medical Society.

September 14, 2012

The Massachusetts Medical Society opposes this ballot question.

On November 6, Massachusetts voters will have the opportunity to vote on Question 2, “Prescribing Medication to End Life.”

We are opposed to Question 2 for these reasons:

* The proposed safeguards against abuse are insufficient. Enforcement provisions, investigation authority, oversight, or data verification are not included in the act. A witness to the patient’s signed request could also be an heir.

* Assisted suicide is not necessary to improve the quality of life at the end of life. Current law gives every patient the right to refuse lifesaving treatment, and to have adequate pain relief, including hospice and palliative sedation.

* Predicting the end of life within six months is difficult; sometimes the prediction is not accurate. From time to time, patients expected to be within months of their death have gone on to live many more months — or years. In one study, 17 percent of patients outlived their prognosis.

* Doctors should not participate in assisted suicide. The chief policy making body of the Massachusetts Medical Society has voted to oppose physician assisted suicide.

The Massachusetts Medical Society has reaffirmed its commitment to provide physicians treating terminally ill patients with the ethical, medical, social, and legal education, training, and resources to enable them to contribute to the comfort and dignity of the patient and the patient’s family.

Lynda M. Young, MD, MMS past president, testified about the MMS policy at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on March 6, 2012:

“Allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good. Physician assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer. “Instead of participating in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life. ...  Patients must continue to receive emotional support, comfort care, adequate pain control, respect for patient autonomy, and good communication.”

Download this document in PDF format. (1 page)

MMS policy, and the arguments for and against physician-assisted suicide (.pdf, 8 pages)

HOPE Australia founder: First European Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide - A big Success.

Paul Russell
founder - HOPE Australia

I’m just back from the first European Symposium on Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide held in Edinburgh Scotland. Thanks to the organisers the UK Care Not Killing Alliance for putting on a fantastic event and also to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Canada for sponsoring my trip.

The event gathered experts from across the globe and, most notably, from every European nation where euthanasia & assisted suicide is practiced or is threatened.

The event was strongly outcome focussed and many new alliances and outcomes were forged over the two days.

As part of my trip I was asked to take part in a debate in Aberdeen as part of the British Science Fair. The audience was polled prior to the event and post-event polling showed that our side convinced four previous neutral audience members whilst the pro-side convinced no-one extra.

Three Things We Can Learn From Dying Hospice Patients

Does our society hold too narrow a view of what defines strength?

Palliative Care

The things many would point to as indicators – youth, wealth, a fully capable body – fall short, says Charles Gourgey, a veteran hospice music therapist and author of Judeochristianity: The Meaning and Discovery of Faith (www.judeochristianity.org), a book that explores the unifying faith elements of Judaism and Christianity.

“Youth is ephemeral, abundant wealth is for just a few, and we all experience some kind of disability, usually at several points in our lives,” he says. “A car accident, the loss of a job or a home, grief over a loved one’s dying: such things can happen to anyone and easily destroy our happiness.”

Gourgey says some of the greatest strength he’s ever seen was demonstrated by certain of his patients facing imminent death.

“Some people have complete love and grace when facing death – it’s how they’ve lived their lives, and at the end of their lives, it’s what supports them,” he says. “Those who, at the end, are peaceful, grateful and confident share some common characteristics.”

They are:

• Their love is non-self-interested. When we have awareness of and deepest respect and reverence for the individuality of others, we overcome the high walls of ego and experience a tremendous sense of freedom, says Gourgey. He says he continues to be inspired by patients who cared more for the well-being of others, including their fellow hospice patients, than themselves while facing their own mortality. Non-self-interested love – loving others for themselves without expecting or needing anything in return – is the greatest form of love, he says.

• They had an unwavering faith that transcended religious dogma. Faith is the knowledge that there is more to life than the apparent randomness of the material world; a sense that we are known to a greater reality and will return to that reality. No matter what their religion, the patients who were most at peace with their life’s journey were those who had faith in something higher than themselves. The problem with many concepts of faith, Gourgey continues, is that people attach specific doctrines to it, which means some people will always be excluded. A unifying faith – that all people are connected and love is the force that binds us – allows for trust, compassion and caring.

• They were motivated by an innate sense of what is good. They didn’t get mad at themselves; they didn’t beat themselves up for mistakes they might have made in the past. That’s because they were always guided by their sense of what is good, and they made their choices with that in mind. That did not prevent them from making some bad choices or mistakes over the course of their lives, Gourgey says. But when they erred, they addressed the problem with the same loving compassion they extended to others. “Their compassion overcame even any self-hate they may have experienced.”

Many patients left lasting impressions on Gourgey, and taught him valuable life lessons. He remembers one in particular.

“She was in hospice, a retired nurse who had developed a rare, incurable disease,” he recalls. “She would go around every day, checking to see what she could do for the other patients. She fetched blankets for a 104-year-old lady who always complained of cold feet. She sat with and listened to patients who needed company and someone to talk to. She had an attentive awareness about her, like she was fully in touch with her soul.” 

Gourgey was with the woman when she died.

“She was radiant, she just glowed. She kept repeating how grateful she was for her life,” he says. “It was as if the life of love she’d lived was there to transport and support her at the end.” 

About Charles “Carlos” Gourgey

Charles “Carlos” Gourgey, PhD, LCAT, MT-BC, is a board-certified and New York state-licensed music therapist. He has more than 20 years of experience working in hospices and nursing homes, and for 10 years was music therapist for Cabrini Hospice in New York City. He has published articles on psychology and religion in various journals.

Most British MPs oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide says new poll

Dr. Peter Saunders

By Dr Peter Saunders, Campaign Director, Care Not Killing Alliance - UK

More than seven out of ten MPs refuse to back calls to legalise assisted suicide, according to a new survey released today (See reports from Press Association, Telegraph and Conservative Home). 

The poll comes just a week after two newly appointed junior health ministers, Anna Soubry and Norman Lamb, suggested that assisted suicide should be decriminalised and just before the Liberal Democrat Conference where some MPs are expected to push for a change in the law. 

It found that just 29% of MPs back moves to introduce assisted suicide, while 59% were opposed and 12% were undecided.

The survey of more than 150 MPs, conducted by ComRes, asked MPs from all parties about their views on assisted suicide.

Opposition was especially fierce in Scotland, where 86% of MPs opposed new legalisation.

The poll also found that a majority of MPs believe that if the current laws were changed there would be an increase in suicides and that vulnerable people would feel under pressure to end their lives while fewer than one third of MPs (30%) felt that changing the law would not lead to an increase in suicides.

More than seven out of ten MPs (72%) felt that if doctors were allowed to prescribe lethal drugs to patients on request, vulnerable people could feel under pressure to opt for suicide.

Almost 60% of those surveyed said legalising assisted suicide in the current economic climate would increase the risk that vulnerable people would opt for suicide so as not to be a financial burden upon loved ones.

The poll also found that majorities in all political parties disagreed with the statement that legalising assisted suicide is a key priority at the present time with just 5% of Labour MPs supporting this statement.

The poll is timely coming just a few days after a report of a man taking his life after watching a Terry Pratchett BBC ‘documentary’ supporting assisted suicide and in the same week as national statistics revealed that suicides amongst men over 45 in England are at their highest level in twenty years. 

It also comes as pro-euthanasia lobby groups make preparations for introducing new bills to the House of Lords and to the Scottish Parliament with the aim of legalising assisted suicide.

Care Not Killing, who commissioned the poll, have consistently argued that any change in the law to allow assisted suicide would put pressure on vulnerable people to end their lives and that these pressures would be particularly acute at a time when many sick, elderly and disabled people are struggling to make ends meet.

Fortunately, a clear majority of MPs recognise this and agree that assisted suicide should not be legalised. 

The first duty of the state is to protect its citizens and the current law with its blanket prohibition on assisting suicide is clear and right. It acts as a strong disincentive to abuse and exploitation whilst giving some discretion to prosecutors and judges to temper justice with mercy in hard cases. It does not need changing. 

Euthanasia in Russia unacceptable forever and always?

The following article was written by Sergei Vasilenko and published in the Russian newspaper - Pravda under the title: Euthanasia in Russia unacceptable forever and always?

Vasilenko examines the issue of euthanasia in the UK and world-wide and then comments about whether or not euthanasia should be legalized in Russia. He writes:

In Russia, the ban on any form of euthanasia is regulated by the law from November 21, 2011, under which medics are prohibited to commit any action or inaction aimed at depriving patients of their life. 

In Russia, like in any other part of the world, there are many of those who support and oppose euthanasia. Stanislav Minin, an observer with the Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper, believes that it is up for a person, but never for the government to decide whether to live or to die. 

Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin said that maybe it is not necessary to maintain life with the help of medical equipment if a person was suffering for many years, showing no signs of meaningful life. In this case, Chaplin said, it is not clear whether there is a soul in the body or not. 

However, chief sanitary doctor of Russia, Gennady Onishchenko, speaks strongly against euthanasia. He says that doctors should not be executioners. According to him, such actions and thoughts humiliate medical specialists. 

Should Russia allow euthanasia on the legislative level, even in a passive form? Probably not - for a variety of reasons. 

If euthanasia is approved in Russia, where corruption is still quite strong, it will most likely lead to the appearance of a great deal of violations at this point. It is quite possible that people will be put to death through forged documents and bribed doctors in order to obtain material benefits.

I am not suggesting that other nations face the same level of corruption as Russia, but corruption exists everywhere.

For instance in Belgium there were three studies published in 2010 concerning euthanasia in Belgium:

1. 32% of euthanasia deaths that were done by physicians in the Flanders region of Belgium were done without explicit request or consent.
2. A similar study that analysed euthanasia deaths that were done by nurses in Belgium found that 45% were done without explicit request or consent.
3. The third study concerning the reporting of euthanasia in Belgium found that only 52.8% of all euthanasia deaths were reported.

Belgium is a highly educated country with a well developed medical and justice system.

It is not only unsafe to legalize euthanasia in Russia, it is unsafe world-wide.