The Supreme Court must uphold legal protections for every Canadian.

Media Release

On October 15, the Supreme Court is hearing a case concerning Canada’s laws related to euthanasia and assisted suicide. Many Canadians are concerned about whether the laws designed to protect their lives will be upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has intervened in this case at every level.

EPC legal counsel Hugh Scher states:

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

EPC-BC chair Dr Will Johnston states:

The Supreme Court will consider this important public safety issue. The Court rejected assisted suicide and euthanasia in 1993 and prevented Canada from taking a wrong turn. In the 20 years since, human nature has not changed, our poor record of predicting the dying process has not changed, and vulnerable people are still at risk in our health care system. We are getting better at controlling symptoms, and we have seen the abuses of euthanasia in those few jurisdictions where this practice has become entrenched. 

Let us hope that by clarifying the issues, the Supreme Court once again confirms the Canadian rejection of suicide and direct killing of the sick, and that we stay the course by improving symptom control to all who need it.

EPC Executive Director, Alex Schadenberg stated:

The Supreme Court needs examine how decriminalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide will affect every Canadian. 

In other jurisdictions, euthanasia has expanded to include people with depression, people with psychiatric problems, people with dementia, teenagers and other incompetent people. 

The laws in other jurisdictions have also been abused. 

Canadian society needs to focus on how it cares for people in difficult circumstances, not how it could kill these people.

For further information contact:

• Dr Will Johnston, (Vancouver) EPC-BC Chair: (604) 220-2042, willjohnston@shaw.ca
• Alex Schadenberg, (London) EPC Executive Director: (519) 851-1434, info@epcc.ca

EPC representatives at the Supreme Court:

• Hugh Scher, EPC Legal Counsel: (416) 816-6115.
• Taylor Hyatt, EPC member and disability activist: (613) 408-2906
• Natasha Fernandes, EPC member and medical student: (613) 413-8811

Assisted Suicide: Double standard for people with disabilities.

Taylor Hyatt

CBC produced a series of interviews to be aired while the media reports on the Supreme Court of Canada case that is examining the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. Today, CBC aired this program concerning the position of people with disabilities on the issues.

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear the case concerning euthanasia and assisted suicide on Wednesday October 15.

The program features: Stephen Fletcher, the Conservative MP who is promoting two bills to decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada, and Taylor Hyatt, a Carlton University student who lives with cerebral palsy.

The CBC program presents Hyatt's position in this manner:

Fletcher’s desire to improve access to physician-assisted suicide does not match the policies of groups such as the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. Fletcher’s stance also contradicts that of Taylor Hyatt, a 22-year-old student at Carleton University. 

Hyatt, who is also a member of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair. She worries pushing for physician-assisted suicide will affect society’s impression of people with disabilities, suggesting some will think people are "better off dead than disabled." 

Hyatt said she there is a double standard when it comes to people with disabilities and physician-assisted suicide, and Fletcher’s bill would not help. 

"It’s like you’re standing at the edge of a cliff … as an able-bodied person, the population will extend its hand to you to say, 'Here there’s help for you,'" Hyatt said. "I feel like for the disabled population, they’ll push you over."

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition are both intervening before the Supreme Court of Canada and are both asking the court to uphold Canada's current laws protecting Canadians from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Physician Hastened Death: Awaiting a Verdict

This article was published by the CMAJ on October 14, 2014.

Harvey Chochinov

Prof Harvey Max Chochinov, OC OM MD PhD FRCP(C), is Canada Research Chair in Palliative Care; Director, Manitoba Palliative Care Research Unit; Chair, Canadian Virtual Hospice; and Distinguished Professor in the Department of Psychiatry, University of Manitoba.

Prof Balfour M. Mount, OC QC MD FRCP(C), is Eric M. Flanders Professor Emeritus of Palliative Medicine, McGill University.

Balfour Mount

On October 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear an appeal by the BC Civil Liberties Association that could grant terminally ill Canadians the right to assisted suicide. Given that impending ruling, the recent passing of Bill 52 in Quebec (legalizing euthanasia or what is euphemistically being called Medical Aid in Dying [MAD]) and rumblings from parliament of yet another private members bill on assisted suicide, Canada is clearly at a crossroads on this issue. The Court faces a daunting task. Where rhetoric ends, the war of what the data say begins; with each side invoking elements of empirical evidence that happen to support their particular argument. Add fear of death, dread of the process of dying—and our societal aversion to discuss these issues—and one begins to appreciate what the court is up against.

The Law and Physician Assisted Dying.

This article was written by Tom Koch and published by the CMAJ on October 13, 2014.

Tom Koch

By Professor Tom Koch

For most Canadians, the October 15 arguments at the Supreme Court in Ottawa will be about medical “aid in dying,” what the Dutch bluntly but accurately call physician assisted or directed termination. But what is really at stake in Carter et al. versus Attorney General et al is Canadian law itself, the meaning of its guarantees, promises, and injunctions. In effect, lawyers for and against “aid in dying” are asking the Supreme Court’s justices to interpret two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The result will define not simply issues of “assisted dying” but the future of Canadian law and society for years to come.

The Charter’s Section 15 guarantees that: 

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person.” Section Seven promises that “every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination … based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”

The Danger of Assisted Suicide laws.

The following article was written by Marilyn Golden and published by CNN on October 13. Golden is a senior policy analyst with the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF). The views expressed are her own.

Marilyn Golden

By Marilyn Golden

My heart goes out to Brittany Maynard, who is dying of brain cancer and who wrote last week about her desire for what is often referred to as "death with dignity."

Yet while I have every sympathy for her situation, it is important to remember that for every case such as this, there are hundreds -- or thousands -- more people who could be significantly harmed if assisted suicide is legal.

The legalization of assisted suicide always appears acceptable when the focus is solely on an individual. But it is important to remember that doing so would have repercussions across all of society, and would put many people at risk of immense harm. After all, not every terminal prognosis is correct, and not everyone has a loving husband, family or support system.

As an advocate working on behalf of disability rights for 37 years, and as someone who uses a wheelchair, I am all too familiar with the explicit and implicit pressures faced by people living with chronic or serious disability or disease. But the reality is that legalizing assisted suicide is a deadly mix with the broken, profit-driven health care system we have in the United States

At less than $300, assisted suicide is, to put it bluntly, the cheapest treatment for a terminal illness. This means that in places where assisted suicide is legal, coercion is not even necessary. If life-sustaining expensive treatment is denied or even merely delayed, patients will be steered toward assisted suicide, where it is legal.

This problem applies to government-funded health care as well.

Barbara Wagner

In 2008, came the story that Barbara Wagner, a Springfield, Oregon, woman diagnosed with lung cancer and prescribed a chemotherapy drug by her personal physician, had reportedly received a letter from the Oregon Health Plan stating that her chemotherapy treatment would not be covered. She said she was told that instead, they would pay for, among other things, her assisted suicide.

"To say to someone: "We'll pay for you to die, but not for you to live" -- it's cruel," she said.

Another Oregon resident, 53-year-old Randy Stroup, was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Like Wagner, Stroup was reportedly denied approval of his prescribed chemotherapy treatment and instead offered coverage for assisted suicide.

Meanwhile, where assisted suicide is legal, an heir or abusive caregiver may steer someone towards assisted suicide, witness the request, pick up the lethal dose, and even give the drug -- no witnesses are required at the death, so who would know? This can occur despite the fact that diagnoses of terminal illness are often wrong, leading people to give up on treatment and lose good years of their lives.

Dying with Dignity poll was biased and false

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A recent online poll, paid for by the euthanasia lobby, claimed that 84% of Canadians support the legalization of assisted suicide.

After reading the poll questions and the results I published an article titled: Assisted suicide polls will fluctuate based on how the questions are asked.

Last week the Globe and Mail had their own online assisted suicide poll. The Globe and Mail has been one of the most one-sided pro-euthanasia publications in Canada.

On Saturday, October 11 - hidden in a small text box on the right hand side of page A8 the Globe and Mail published the following statement:

Next week the Supreme Court of Canada will consider a case from British Columbia that could transform taking your own life into a basic human right' Most pollsters say that Canadians are greatly in favour of changing the law to reflect this Point of view' But when we asked our online readers if they agree with assisted suicide, the response was very different indeed. 

NO 71% (20263 votes) YES 26% (7459 votes) UNSURE 5% (942 votes)

Big picture missed in Canadian euthanasia poll.

This article was written by Susan Martinuk and published in the Calgary Herald.

By Susan Martinuk is regular columnist.

Susan Martinuk

A famous quote, attributed to 19th century British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli, says: “There are three kinds of lies — lies, damned lies and statistics.”

Forget the lies and the damned lies for now. Let’s consider statistics, particularly as they relate to online public surveys. Statistics resulting from surveys can be problematic in that the answers pollsters get are directly correlated to the questions asked. That can be good or bad, depending on what perspective you are attempting to illuminate.

It’s something to keep in mind as current media and activist reports tell us that Canadians “overwhelmingly” support changing our laws to allow physician-assisted suicide.

An online survey on the public’s perception of dying with dignity was conducted by Ipsos Reid. It was commissioned by Dying with Dignity Canada (a group pushing for the legalization of doctor-assisted suicide) and therefore it is certain they had significant input (at minimum) into determining the wording of questions and the questions asked.

The very fact the poll was released this week, just days before the Supreme Court of Canada hears a case claiming laws banning assisted suicide violate an individual’s charter rights, also speaks to the activist underpinnings of this particular survey.

Activist groups do it all the time, so there’s nothing wrong with it. The point is that the public should be aware (yet rarely is) of the possible political angles attached to any survey.

What is Palliative Care?

By Leslie Vandever

In a world where advanced scientific and medical knowledge have made it possible to survive injuries, acute but deadly serious illnesses, and even cure once incurable diseases, there is now more need than ever before for compassionate, ongoing care that can soothe or relieve distress, discomfort, and pain.

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the medical meaning of palliative as:

“something that reduces the effects or symptoms of a medical condition without curing it.”

Today, palliative—or comfort—care is for anyone of any age who suffers from serious acute or chronic illness. Unlike hospice care, which is a compassionate form of care which may include palliative care but is only for patients who will soon die, palliative care is positive and life-affirming. It regards death as a normal life process and neither hastens nor postpones it.

Often started early in the process of caring for the patient—and frequently in conjunction with other therapies, such as chemo or radiation therapy for cancer—this deeply compassionate form of therapy combines both spiritual and psychological aspects of patient care not only to relieve discomfort and distress, but to improve the patient’s quality of life.

Brittany Maynard: The Vultures are circling

This article was published by Wesley Smith on his blog on October 9, 2014.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

I wasn’t going to write about the Brittany Maynard assisted suicide frenzy. Maynard is apparently dying of brain cancer at age 29, and has decided to mount a pro-assisted suicide campaign, announcing she will kill herself on November 1.

I wasn’t going to write about Maynard because I am not critical of her. No one knows what our limits might be. But more importantly, she is a living, very ill woman. No way I am going to do anything to add to her burden.

But then, I started getting many media calls to comment: 

Three minutes on TV talking her planned suicide, and next up, “Kim Kardashian shocks again!” No way.

And so I changed my mind. I felt the need to unleash–not at her–but at those who are exploiting her tragedy for their own purposes.

First in line–although Maynard would surely disagree–are assisted suicide advocates:

- Assisted suicide movement leaders are always on the lookout for attractive cases to further their cause, and clearly believe they have one in Maynard because of her youth, beauty, and the tragedy of her condition. 

- The movement has obviously orchestrated an expensive and very well planned media campaign to use her planned suicide to force open the door to doctor-prescribed death. I mean the story is all over the place. That doesn’t happen by accident. 

- More than that–and most egregiously–by validating and extolling her self-termination, assisted suicide advocates make it harder for her to back off the ledge.

I saw this in the Nancy Crick case in Australia. Assisted suicide advocates and the ghoul Philip Nitschke–were all with her when she planned to kill herself. Then, when Crick had doubts, they backed away from her. The message was clear, kill yourself and we are your friends. Don’t, and we don’t care about you. When she finally did the deed, she had assisted suicide advocates in the room with her. When she took the poison, they applauded.

Limits for euthanasia steadily eroding in Netherlands.

The following article was published on October 7, 2014 by OneNewsNow.

Alex Schadenberg

The Netherlands is working to force doctors to be involved in assisting suicide even if they oppose it.

The figures have been released on 2013 euthanasia and assisted suicide in the Netherlands, and Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has reviewed the numbers.

“What it shows again is a massive increase in the number of euthanasia deaths,” he says. “There's a 15-percent increase again, and you might say, Well, 15 percent - what is that? Well, there's been a 15-percent increase pretty much every year for the last six or seven years. So we now see euthanasia/assisted suicide deaths are up to 4,829.”

There was also a spike in euthanasia for dementia cases and for people going through psychiatric problems. Schadenberg adds that what qualifies for euthanasia is continually expanding - and now freedom of conscience for physicians is under question.

“In the Dutch Parliament they're debating the question of conscience rights,” he explains. “At this time, Dutch physicians don't have to do euthanasia. What they're doing is saying that a physician doesn't have to do it, but will have to refer a patient to someone who will do it.”

At the same time, Dutch pediatricians want to extend euthanasia to children under the age of 12.

Links to more information on the Netherlands euthanasia law:

• Netherlands 2013 euthanasia report.
• Dutch ethicist - Assisted suicide: "Don't go there".
• Euthanasia: Incremental extensions are inevitable. 
• Dutch health minister: 45 psychiatric euthanasia deaths in 2013.
• The Netherlands euthanasia law has derailed.
• Blind woman dies by euthanasia in the Netherlands.

Assisted Suicide polls will fluctuate based on how the questions are asked.

Dying with Dignity released a poll today that is written in a manner that causes in confusion, leading to a higher support for assisted suicide. 

Recent polls indicate that support for assisted suicide fluctuates based on how the question is asked.

For instance an article written by Lise Ravery in Quebec, Ravery stated that:

… A 2013 Ipsos Marketing poll showed that merely one-third of Quebecers know what “dying with dignity” really entails. Another third thinks it means palliative care and rest believes that it refers to assisted suicide or cessation of treatments.

Link to the Québec poll information.

The same result recently occurred in the UK. A poll that was done during the assisted suicide bill debate found that when more information about the bill was provided support for assisted suicide dropped.

A similar finding was observed in the US.

Our polling shows that most Canadians fear dying a bad death, that only a few people strongly support euthanasia and assisted suicide, and when asked, Canadians believe that the government needs to place a greater priority on improving end-of-life care rather than legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Links to more information:

• Survey results show confusion reigns.
• Public support for assisted suicide drops to 43% when arguments against are heard.
• Gallup poll claims that 69% of Americans support euthanasia.
• Pew research survey: Americans are opposed to assisted suicide.
• The majority of Connecticut residents do not support assisted suicide.

Greed, personal motives can influence 'choice' to assist suicide . . .

This article was written by Dr Annie Bukacek and published in the Revalli Republic on October 6.

I disagree with Barbara Coombs Lee, who implies that assisted suicide is legal in Montana (“Rebutting claims,” Sept. 16).

I am an internal medicine physician with over 20 years’ experience. In both 2011 and 2013, proposed bills to legalize assisted suicide failed to get through our legislature. In both years, these bills had sought to legalize assisted suicide for people with a prognosis of less than six months to live. A prognosis (prediction) does not mean dying. I have seen many cases where specialists have been wrong in predicting life span, sometimes by decades.

A Roundup man was recently charged with “aiding or soliciting suicide” of a 16-year-old girl here in Montana. His apparent motive was to prevent her testimony against him in another matter, i.e., by getting her to kill herself. According to an Associate Press article, he coerced her to actually take steps towards that goal, which fortunately did not result in her death.

Similarly, in Minnesota, a former nurse was recently convicted of assisting a young man to kill himself. Both the nurse and the Roundup man had used webcams to communicate with their victims. The nurse’s reported motive was the “thrill of the chase.”

These stories illustrates a fundamental problem with legalizing assisted suicide. The assisting person can have his or her own agenda to encourage a person to kill themselves. The “choice” will not necessarily be that of the victim/patient.

In my practice, where I have a high percentage of older patients, I have witnessed greed by family members over inheritances, including vicious battles over the death bed. This same motive of greed could lead to a coerced suicide, especially if assisted suicide were legalized in our state.

Let’s keep legal assisted suicide out of Montana.

Annie Bukacek,
Kalispell

Links to similar articles:

• Convicted Montana rapist charged with aiding or soliciting suicide.
• British family reacts to the appeal of the assisted suicide conviction by a Minnesota suicide predator.
• Assisted suicide is not legal in Montana, not the answer.

Debating Assisted Suicide: 'Contempt for life with disability surrounds us'

This article was published by Access Magazine, a disability rights magazine in the UK.

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick OBE is the Spokesperson/Convener of the Not Dead Yet UK Campaign. Kevin was recently hired as the Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International.

Kevin Fitzpatrick

Advocates of assisted suicide say that it is for people who are terminally ill, not disabled people. But assisted suicide will not be confined to those dying imminently. Falconer’s Bill includes people with progressive conditions.

And just look at how the wealthy lobby for legalizing assisted suicide always use (or abuse) severely disabled people who are not terminally ill, to garner untutored public support for assisted suicide. Severely disabled people deeply grieving their losses with their newly discovered motor neurone disease, despairing of their futures, believing death is their only option.

The pro-assisted suicide lobby commissions polls that ask questions which are confusing or misleading. People believe they are voting in favour of an image they hold of a peaceful, painless death at home, surrounded by loving family. When they are shown the more realistic scenarios that such a law would bring about, their support falls away dramatically. According to a ComRes poll published on July 18th this year, 43% remain for, 43% decide against and the rest ‘don’t know’.

Inadequate protections

Disabled people do not currently receive adequate protection from either the Courts or the police. If there is not enough support made available to suicidal disabled people from disabled people’s organisations, that is generally because we are starved of resources. There are no celebrity millions for us; instead, we’re threatened out of existence by cuts, or else forced to work as volunteers on nil resources to resist this growing death cult.

At present, the Courts are not given to examining the suicidal feelings of disabled people. They, like the general public, attribute an individual’s desire to die to their disabilities, rather than to the circumstances of their lives – which could include the loss of a spouse, confinement to a nursing home, or the pressure of feeling that they are burdens on their families. They superficially conclude that the individual is not ‘suicidal’ – but also not treatable, nor deserving of support to live and love.

Disabled people and those with incurable chronic diseases have experienced a long history of persecution and genocide. It is too easily forgotten that during the 1930s, 200,000 people with disabilities were put to death by Nazi physicians who were inspired by contemporary euthanasia movements in England and the US, long before the racial genocide began.

People with visible disabilities have historically been forced to hide from the public gaze. Only a short while ago disabled people were routinely imprisoned in institutions. More recently, there has been an international rise in the frequency of hate crimes against people with disabilities. Contempt for life with disability surrounds us.

In this context, we should be granted greater protections for our lives, as a minority group at risk – not having what little protection from harm and attack we can still count on stripped away from us.

Further information about the Not Dead Yet UK Campaign can be found at: www.notdeadyetuk.org and on Twitter by following @notdeadyetuk

There’s no “mushy middle” on euthanasia.

This article was originally published by Mercatornet on October 2, 2014.

Margaret Somerville

By Margaret Somerville

Many know the saying “You have to fish or cut bait”. Many fewer know the law’s equivalent, “You can’t approbate and reprobate”. But the Canadian Medical Association’s recent dealing with their 2007 Policy on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide makes it seem they are unaware of the warning and wisdom these axioms communicate.

That CMA policy unambiguously declares: "Canadian physicians should not participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide."  Despite that, a motion passed at the recent CMA General Council meeting, which ostensibly was meant only to ensure freedom of conscience, has allowed the CMA to make the following statement in its intervener factum in the upcoming appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada in the Carter case:

“As long as such practices [as euthanasia and assisted suicide] remain illegal, the CMA believes that physicians should not participate in medical aid in dying. If the law were to change, the CMA would support its members who elect to follow their conscience [either to refuse or to undertake euthanasia and assisted suicide].”

(The Carter case centres on the issue of whether the Canadian Criminal Code’s prohibition of assisted suicide is unconstitutional as a breach of Charter rights to “life, liberty and security of the person” and rights against discrimination. The Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled the prohibition was unconstitutional, a majority of the Court of Appeal of BC reversed that ruling as contrary to the Supreme Court of Canada precedent in the Rodriguez case where the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the prohibition as valid. The issue now is whether the Supreme Court of Canada will overrule its previous precedent.)

The CMA President, Dr Chris Simpson, affirmed in an email, 

"The factum was reviewed and approved by several senior CMA elected officials and reflects both current CMA policy as well as the recent session at General Council and the results of our consultation processes undertaken during the past year."

So, what now is that policy?

Euthanasia: Bias, Bigotry and My Life.

This article was written by Dave Hingsburger and published on his blog on October 2.

Dave Hingsburger

I was supposed to be in Ottawa today to speak, from a disability perspective, at a parliamentary luncheon around the issue of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Life intervened and I simply couldn't do it. I have turned my speaking notes into a blog. Here is a very adapted version of what I wanted to say.

It starts here. It always starts here. It doesn't start with me, though you think it does, it starts with you. It starts the moment you see me. It starts the moment you lay eyes on me. Judgements, evaluations, valuations ... you start to look at yourself in relation to me, and that's when it happens. Stereotypes, assumptions, prejudices and biases come into play. Before I open my mouth, my worth and the worthiness of what I have to say, have been calculated, and typically, found wanting. Who I am as a person depends, not on me, my life, my history, but on the perception you have of me, of fat people, of disabled people, of gay people.

I met with a doctor who, before even greeting me asked me an odd question. She said, without looking up, "odious pee?" in a tired and bored voice, she'd done this before, she knew the answer. I was surprised and said, "No, my urine is fine." She looked up, flustered and said, a bit angrily, "I asked about odious pee." I was flustered too and said, "My urine is fine." As it turned out she was asking me about ODSP (Ontario Disability Support Program) a benefits program. I was not on ODSP, a fact that shook her a little bit. She had disability figured. Doctors, it's important to recognize, are not automatically free from prejudices and stereotypes regarding disability.

Two days after becoming a wheelchair user, someone said to me, "I don't know how you do it, I'd rather be dead than in a wheelchair." That was the first time that this was said to me. It was not the last. This attitude is increasingly present in our society, movies love plots where newly disabled people beg for death and are subsequently relieved of the burden of life. This attitude, one that death is preferable to life in a wheelchair - who guarantee that my doctor, my surgeon, my specialist does not have this prejudice? Who assures that prejudice against the poor doesn't lead to worse health care - oh, right, NOBODY. "I'd rather be dead than in a wheelchair," if you've said it, if you believe it, I don't want you to be my doctor, I don't want you having anything to do with decisions about my life.

Until you talk about bigotry and bias and prejudice, you cannot talk about 'assisted suicide' or 'euthanasia' with any degree of authority.

Until you talk about guarantees that people with disabilities are already getting equal health care, quality health care, you can't talk about 'end of life' or 'DNRs' with any degree of authority.

Standing beside me in the picture, just outside of your view, is a man with Down Syndrome. He comes from a people who's lives have already been determined as worthless. Headlines tout this country or that country aim to be Down Syndrome free by this year or that year. this news is celebrated. The man standing next to me has heard the debates about his life. Well, not debates, because you see he's never been asked. People with Down Syndrome are spoken about, not spoken with. When he enters the hospital a DNR can be slapped on him without his knowledge or consent. It's assumed, because of bias, bigotry and prejudice, that his life isn't worth living. He may disagree, but likely isn't given the chance to.

Every time I enter a hospital, I enter hostile territory. I anticipate that I will deal with ignorance from people with million dollar educations. I anticipate that I will deal with prejudice from people who have said an oath, meant to protect me from them. I anticipate that I will need to be a strong vocal advocate for myself.

I am fortunate. Very fortunate. When I became disabled, when the wheelchair was rolled into the room, I didn't sink into despair or depression, instead my heart leapt with glee. I was about to get out of Intensive Care and into Intensely Living. Here's why I was fully prepared:

1) I worked with kids with disabilities in a high school setting. Within two days I recognized that I was working with teens in wheelchairs. Within two days I learned that the wheelchair was there, it was real, but it was what they sat on, and that was all. I already knew when I got my first wheelchair that it was going to be a sweet ride. People with disabilities, not other's view of disability, was the source of my information.

2) I had a strong network of support. Primarily, I had Joe, a man that I love and I knew loved me. Rolling or standing, it didn't matter. He was there for me, he wanted our live together to continue even if it needed to adapt. He understood that he would need to help me, but we'd been helping each other for nearly 40 years, big deal.

3) I had a preexisting accessible workplace. I had no fear of not being able to get into the building, not being able to access my desk, not being able to use the washroom. More than the building being accessible, the attitudes of my employers were welcoming and accepting. They made the adaptions necessary for me, and, all these years later, I'm still happily employed there.

4) My doctor has no prejudice regarding who I am. I know he values my health care. I know he values my quality of life. I know he values me, like he values every patient he serves. I have never been talked down to, rather I've been involved in decisions about my health care. I have never had a sense from him that he wants anything less than the best for me. My disability is discussed when it needs to be discussed, which is a lot less often than you might imagine.

I believe that I am lucky. Very lucky.

But I don't want to survive on luck. I want a set of guarantees that the value of my life will never be measured by the bigotry of another. Another with power. I want a set of guarantees that assures me and assures every disabled person that we will not be pushed into depression, by bigotry by health care professionals, by bias from politicians, by unnecessary barriers to a full life, as the first step towards the final solution.

My death should never be your solution.

My life, as a citizen, should be your only, and primary, concern.

Nitschke - The fallout and the problem with the few

This article is written by Craig Wallace, the convenor of the disability rights group Lives Worth Living Australia. This article was also published by HOPE Australia.

Craig Wallace

In The Age (Melbourne) back in August Ian Maddocks, Emeritus Professor of Palliative Care at Flinders University and Senior Australian of the Year 2013, wrote a reflective piece arising out of the decision of the Medical Board of Australia to use emergency powers to immediately suspend the then Dr Phillip Nitschke, after he admitted to supporting 45-year-old Perth man Nigel Brayley in his decision to commit suicide despite knowing he was not terminally ill.

Professor Maddocks intelligent piece crystallises a dilemma faced by euthanasia advocates in the wake of the Nitschke deregistration as they attempt to craft a new argument for medically assisted dying based on process, nuance and evidence, not just the wielding of emotion or the idea of suicide as the exercise of a personal right. There are lessons here too for the anti-euthanasia lobby which has sometimes equally allowed itself to be painted into a corner with black and white arguments founded in dogma.

As the piece highlights, the reality of patients’ lives and doctor’s interventions is nuanced and dogma defying. There are shades of grey, changes in circumstances and many forces which might weigh on decisions.

For medically assisted dying to become ethical, a doctor would need to be sure of all the factors weighing in a person’s mind, not just at a point in time, but across time. People change their minds. They have good days and bad days.

A doctor would also need to be alert to a layer of emotional, financial and family pressures which might be brought to bear on a person considering ending their lives. It is not hard to imagine what these pressures could be in a family under stress with money on the line.

Given the difficulty of obtaining such a spread and depth of insight, especially in the busy life of a doctor, it is little wonder that Professor Maddocks concludes that a desirable result would be one where medically assisted dying was available to “just a few” and for most as an option for peace of mind, but rarely used.

It is here that problems begin anew. In a world of total empathy, where we understood what each of us meant all of the time, I might support voluntary suicide in extremis on medical grounds for these few.

But we don’t live in a world of crystal clarity so the issue becomes how definitions in legislation conceived by mortals, will be interpreted by other mortals. Legislators and Doctors alike are mortal. Ask the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption or the Australian Medical Board who have now been forced to strike off one of their own.

Top human rights court throws out decision that permitted assisted suicide in Switzerland.

This article was published on the Alliance Defending Freedom website on September 30.

Woman who filed suit, believed to be alive, now discovered to have committed suicide years ago. Attorney sound bite: Paul Coleman

Strasbourg, France — The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights Tuesday threw out a case filed against the Swiss government for its refusal to provide suicide drugs to a woman who did not suffer from any fatal disease. The Grand Chamber nullified an ECHR panel’s decision against Switzerland upon learning that Alda Gross, the woman at the center of the lawsuit, actually committed suicide in November 2011. In an apparent attempt to keep the lawsuit going after her death, no one notified the court or others involved in the lawsuit of her death or of the fact that she committed suicide using the very poison that she was attempting to secure through her lawsuit

Alliance Defending Freedom filed a brief with the Grand Chamber last year. The Grand Chamber had agreed to review the case after an ECHR panel ruled 4-3 that Switzerland’s law banning lethal poison in such circumstances violates Article 8 (regarding the right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights because the court considered the law vague. That ruling is now null and void.

“Because the government has an obligation to protect life, not assist in promoting death, we are pleased to see this bad decision thrown out despite the extraordinary circumstances,” said ADF Legal Counsel Paul Coleman. “The lawsuit’s claim that a person should be able to do whatever he or she pleases does not override national laws rightfully designed to protect the weak and vulnerable.”

The judgment issued Tuesday states that the application to have the Grand Chamber review the case is inadmissible because “the applicant intended to mislead the Court on a matter concerning the very core of her complaint under the Convention.” As the judgment notes, “It is also conceivable that had these facts been known to the Chamber they might have had a decisive influence on its judgment of 14 May 2013 concluding that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention….”

‘Rational suicide’ and capital punishment: Australia’s ‘doctor death’ feeds his own cult

By Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick OBE, 

Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, International and a leader of Not Dead Yet UK

T

Kevin Fitzpatrick

he idea of a ‘rational’ suicide is, to Philip Nitschke, mere ‘common sense’. It is a seductive idea – as so many of his pronouncements can be to an unreflective audience – it contains dangerous elisions that serve his purposes and try to bury serious, thoughtful objections. His recent comments follow Belgium’s decision to euthanize one of its prisoners, a serial rapist/murderer.

Counting suicide as a rational act is shallow and self-serving; if people buy the idea from him, then he stands to sell more of his death-kits, take the media limelight for those who kill themselves following his advice, sell more places at his death seminars and sell membership subscriptions to his organisation – make no mistake, Nitschke enjoys his notoriety built from the despair of others, but he makes money too, on their backs already strained to the point of terminal desolation.

Counting euthanasia of convicted serial killers as rational is the kind of easy extension he makes without drawing breath One response to his remark about a mass murderer of 35 people, is to wonder what the families of his victims make of ‘releasing’ him through euthanasia, and indeed, what they think of Nitschke for proffering the idea. Some of them, like one family member of a victim of the Belgian rapist/murderer, might prefer that he ‘rot’ in prison.

Whatever we might make of that, it is a serious response - not to be glossed over or ignored completely, not even counted as something to be considered. Do victims’ families deserve Nitschke’s further deep insults?

Netherland 2013 euthanasia report - 15% increase, euthanasia for psychiatric problems and dementia.

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The 2013 Netherlands euthanasia report was released today indicating a 15% increase of reported euthanasia deaths. There were also 42 assisted deaths for people with psychiatric problems and 97 assisted deaths for people with dementia. Assisted deaths refer to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The 2013 report indicated that there were 4829 reported assisted deaths which was up from 4188 in 2012. As bad as it is, there are also unreported assisted deaths.

Every five year the Netherlands does a meta-analysis of the euthanasia law. In 2010 the study was published in the Lancet indicated that 23% of all assisted deaths were unreported in the Netherlands, which was up from 20% in 2005 report. Since the under-reporting of euthanasia in the Netherlands represents (20% - 23%) of all euthanasia deaths, therefore it is likely that the actual number of euthanasia deaths is (965 - 1100) deaths higher.

The number of reported euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands is continually increasing.

• There were 2331 reported euthanasia deaths in 2008.
• There were 2636 reported euthanasia deaths in 2009.
• There were 3136 reported euthanasia deaths in 2010.
• There were 3695 reported euthanasia deaths in 2011.
• There were 4188 reported euthanasia deaths in 2012.
• There were 4829 reported euthanasia deaths in 2013.

Theo Boer, a Dutch ethicist who had been a 9 year member of a euthanasia regional review committee recently wrote an article explaining why he has changed his mind and now opposes euthanasia. He explained how the Netherlands law has expanded its reasons for euthanasia and how the number of euthanasia deaths was constantly increasing turning euthanasia into a perceived right rather than an exception.

The reasons for euthanasia continues to expand in the Netherlands. For instance:

• Recently the euthanasia clinic was reprimanded (not shut down) for lethally injecting a woman because she didn't want to live in a nursing home.
• Dutch pediatricians are wanting euthanasia extended to children under 12.
• A healthy woman, who was going blind, was euthanized because she was obsessed with cleanliness and feared being unable to clean the dirt on her clothes.

EPC predicted that there would be a continuous increase in the number and reasons for euthanasia after the Netherlands euthanasia lobby launched six mobile euthanasia teams.

The mobile euthanasia teams claimed that they would fill the "unmet demand" for euthanasia for people with chronic depression (mental pain), people with disabilities, people with dementia and loneliness, and for those whose request for euthanasia was declined by their physician.

Dutch ethicist, Theo Boer, stated in his recent article that: 

I used to be a supporter of legislation. But now, with twelve years of experience, I take a different view. 

Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is not likely to ever go back in again.

We need to heed the warning from Theo Boer. 

We need to reject killing people by euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Australia's Dr Death - Philip Nitschke - is being investigated in 20 deaths.

Alex  Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Sydney Morning Herald is reported that Philip Nitschke, Australia's Dr Death, is being investigated in the deaths of up to 20 people with investigations occurring in every Australia State. 

At the same time, Nitschke is promoting, online, updates to his suicide manual and he has launched a website in German to promote his suicide manuals and devices.

Paul Russell, the founder of HOPE Australia, is calling for a national inquiry into the suicide industry  established by Philip Nitschke.

Warning - If you are having suicidal thoughts please seek help. Your Life Counts.

The latest inquiries into the suicide business by euthanasia lobbyist, Philip Nitschke began in early July when the media reported that Nitschke was being questioned in the death of a healthy depressed man. Australia's ABC news reported that Nitschke admitted to being involved in the death:

In emails obtained by the ABC, Mr Brayley admitted to Dr Nitschke he was not "supporting a terminal medical illness", but said he was "suffering". 

Now Dr Nitschke is being accused of moving into uncharted territory by agreeing to assist Mr Brayley despite knowing he was not terminally ill. 

AUDIO: Listen to PM's report (PM) 

"If a 45-year-old comes to a rational decision to end his life, researches it in the way he does, meticulously, and decides that ... now is the time I wish to end my life, they should be supported. And we did support him in that," he said.

That week, the Australian suicide prevention organization, Beyond Blue, issued a formal complaint to Australia's medical board. On July 24, Australia's Medical Board de-registered Philip Nitschke's medical license.

The Sydney Morning Herald article reported that Nitschke is being investigated by the Victoria police in the death of Ross Currie (55) who died on May 25. The article states that police have emails between Currie and Nitschke with respect to Nitschke's Max Dog Brewing company, a company that sells and distributes Nitrogen inhalent equipment for the purpose of causing death by asphyxiation, under the guise of beer brewing equipment. 

The article also reports that there are 5 complaints being investigated by the Australian Medical Board including one by Paul Russell, the Director of HOPE Australia, and another by the mother of a 26 year-old depressed son who died by suicide allegedly with connections to Nitschke. The article stated:

A Melbourne woman, Judith Taylor, who complained to the board after her 26-year-old son, Lucas, committed suicide using ... after buying Dr Nitschke's euthanasia book, The ... Handbook. She is understood to have claimed that an online forum curated by Exit International encouraged her son to take his life.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition supports HOPE Australia's call for a national inquiry into the suicide industry that has been created by Philip Nitschke.