Assisted Suicide: “No amount of safeguarding will ever be enough”

The following article was published on the blog of the disability rights group Scope in the UK.

Juliet Marlow

Juliet Marlow, a disability rights campaigner and member of Not Dead Yet UK, explains why she is against legalising assisted suicide.

"I want support to live, not to die!"

By Juliet Marlow

Lord Falconer’s Private Member’s Bill proposing the legalisation of doctor-assisted suicide (AS) for those with six months or less to live will receive its third reading in the House of Lords today, Friday 16 January.

This isn’t the first time the matter has been debated. Every few years somebody will make the proposal only for it to be nervously put aside. But this time feels different. Despite its controversial nature it seems the idea has somehow caught public imagination and there is a very real chance that this time it could become law.

My name is Juliet. I’m 44, married, a PhD student and freelance writer. I sing in a rock/pop band and mostly love my life. I have been disabled since I was four; I use a wheelchair and rely on PAs to assist me with pretty much everything. I am also passionately opposed to the legalisation of AS.

On the surface, AS doesn’t look that unreasonable. People know that sick and disabled people have had to fight hard for control of our own lives so naturally they assume we want to control our deaths too.

Not Dead Yet

I am proud to belong to the anti-AS campaign group Not Dead Yet UK. Most of us have personal experience of disability and our reasons for opposing the Bill will vary. But our core arguments are that it is unnecessary and unsafe. No amount of safeguarding will ever be enough to protect all vulnerable people, all the time. And that is a terrifying thought for those of us who face illness and death every day.

Sympathy and fear are the pro-AS lobby’s weapons of choice. Sympathy is hard to fight because some of their campaigners genuinely want to try and prevent future suffering. Nevertheless, I respectfully suggest they have missed the point – it is society that robs people of a ‘good death’, not illness. With proper pain medication and decent patient-centred palliative care, a ‘good death’ can be had. It’s never easy but it can be effectively managed to prevent unnecessary suffering.

Fear is much harder to counteract. People will die in pain and distress unless the authorities ensure all terminally ill people get the palliative support they need. It is no coincidence that at a time of savage public funding cuts, the AS question has raised its ugly head again. It is because the misguided belief that society will always take care of its most vulnerable citizens has been tarnished, exposed as a lie.

Life not death

Our solution is not to control when and how we die, but to focus on life rather than death. We choose to campaign, protest and fight until the authorities introduce a cast-iron, needs-led end-of-life service that allows each of us to live to our natural end without pain and imagined ‘loss of dignity’.

The suggestion that dignity is lost through illness and can only be reclaimed by controlling the manner of your death is not only ignorant, but insulting to disabled people who have fought to build a meaningful life. If there is any loss of dignity then it is inflicted; it is not a natural state that can be avoided by dying early. I want support to live, not to die!

Disability rights leader opposes assisted suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

"No safeguards have ever been enacted or even proposed that can prevent an outcome that can never be undone."

Yesterday, the Jewish Weekly news published an interview with Marilyn Golden, the Senior Policy Analyst with the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF).

Marilyn Golden

Golden comments on DREDF, disability rights and assisted suicide.

What is DREDF

DREDF is a foremost national law and policy center on disability civil rights. We work on policy such as the Americans with Disabilities Act — which I had the great honor of participating in the development of — and other training, technical assistance and disability rights litigation. I’ve been here since 1988.

You were honored this year by the White House as a transportation “Champion of Change.” What did you do specifically to earn that award? Did you go to the White House?

... I have spent a number of years pushing the envelope to have stronger civil rights protections in transportation for people with disabilities, whether we’re talking about bus, train, ADA paratransit or privately funded transportation. I wrote a number of guides [that] brought together all the information [and] emphasized the rights of people with disabilities. The ceremony was in the old executive office, near the White House, with the secretary of transportation conducting it.

With DREDF, you are also a strong voice against physician-assisted suicide. Why do you oppose it?

Because of direct threats to the disability community, but also because it’s a danger to everyone. People often think, “This is the right position for a liberal to take.” But it turns out that where assisted suicide is legal, some people will lose their lives without their consent through mistakes and abuse. No safeguards have ever been enacted or even proposed that can prevent an outcome that can never be undone. 

People often support it because they’re concerned about end of life pain, but, in fact, anybody dying in pain can avail themselves of something that’s already legal: palliative sedation. 

The disability community is very much at risk — as our lives are not deemed to be as valuable as others — but we’re not alone in the risk. There’s also significant risk of elder abuse. An heir or an abusive caregiver can steer the person toward assisted suicide, pick up the lethal dose and, in the end, even administer it to them because no witness is required at the death.

Assisted suicide articles by Marilyn Golden:

If assisted dying is a medical treatment, then all are entitled to it – including convicted murderers.

This article was published by HOPE Australia on January 15, 2015.

By Paul Russell - The Director of Hope Australia

Kevin Yuill

Kevin Yuill in an article published in Spiked, reflects on the situation of the Belgian prisoner, Frank Van Den Bleeken. Van Den Bleeken was granted his requeswt for euthanasia only to have it cancelled days before it was to be carried out.

Yuill observes the hypocrisy of some in the British commentariat:

“British commentators were mainly aghast at what they saw as the reintroduction of the death penalty. Some objected to Van Den Bleeken’s death on the basis that he, as a prisoner, should not determine his own sentence. Others, such as barrister and ethicist Daniel Sokol, felt that Van Den Bleeken’s death would not be a voluntary act because he had been denied psychiatric treatment. Sokol also argued that ‘[a]llowing a prisoner, who is not terminally ill, to die by euthanasia has a whiff of the death penalty’. In other words, the same people who support Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill in the UK, as well as others who support right-to-die laws in the US, shuddered at the thought of granting the right to die to a prisoner.”

Frank Van Den Bleeken

However, if euthanasia is ‘medical treatment’ as it is often defined, Van Den Bleeken should rightfully be allowed access:

“Indeed, every country and state where voluntary death of one sort or another is legal allows it only as a medical procedure – with the exception of Switzerland, where it is legal for anyone with good motives to assist a suicide. As the UK organisation Health Professionals for Assisted Dying (HPAD) notes: ‘Assisted dying should be just one of many options at the end of life… Those wanting an assisted death should be supported by their healthcare professionals to die.’ 

“Moreover, the criteria for who qualifies for an assisted death in Belgium is medically defined, as it is elsewhere, and is overseen and agreed by doctors. Even in Switzerland’s infamous Dignitas clinic, operations are overseen by a doctor and those who use the services are referred to as patients.”

Media Advisory: Disability Advocates Prepared to Oppose Flurry of State Assisted Suicide Bills Being Introduced in 2015

“If these bills pass, some people’s lives will be ended without their consent, through mistakes and abuse,”

Rochester, NY (PRWEB) January 15, 2015

Disability rights advocates are preparing to work in broad coalition with medical and other groups that oppose legalization of assisted suicide, as proponents announce plans to introduce bills in several states in the wake of Brittany Maynard’s tragic death. Representatives of Not Dead Yet, the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund and Second Thoughts are available for interviews.

Marilyn Golden

... Disability advocates are deeply sympathetic to all people with a terminal illness, facing the difficulties that lie ahead. Legalization of assisted suicide can look acceptable and safe when the focus is solely on one individual. However, a closer examination of the issue reveals the immense harm legalization poses to vulnerable people, the elderly and society as a whole.

“If these bills pass, some people’s lives will be ended without their consent, through mistakes and abuse,” said Marilyn Golden, senior policy analyst with the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund. “No safeguards have ever been enacted or proposed that can prevent this outcome, which can never be undone.”

Assisted suicide legislation was defeated last year in New Hampshire, Connecticut and Massachusetts by a broad coalition of disability rights organizations, medical associations and professionals, palliative care specialists, hospice workers and right to life groups. Similar coalitions are forming in many states in 2015 to oppose assisted suicide bills.

The following individuals are disability rights advocates who are experts and active on the issue of assisted suicide and able to speak on the record.

Marilyn Golden
Senior Policy Analyst
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF)
Berkeley, CA
(510) 703-0696

John B. Kelly
Director
Second Thoughts
Boston, MA
(617) 536-5140

Diane Coleman
President/CEO
Not Dead Yet
Rochester, NY
(708) 420-0539

More information:

Assisted suicide makes a mockery of us as guardians of justice and compassion

The Herald Newspaper in Scotland published this commentary on January 13, 2015.

In the debate on assisted suicide, we are all ultimately on the same side: we all want to limit suffering.

Compassion motivates all those who are genuinely interested in the debate. There is all the difference, however, between limiting suffering and ending life.

Committed supporters of assisted suicide have to as ask themselves two fundamental questions. First, how much risk to the vulnerable are they prepared to accept in order to facilitate suicide by the invulnerable? Secondly, where to draw the line in determining what suffering "qualifies" for assisted suicide?

No safeguard can ever be 100 per cent effective. As well as the clear abuses, there would also be the inevitable subtle pressures on those whose illness or condition met the criteria. On a recent BBC Radio 5 Live phone-in, Michael, who has motor neurone disease, explained how he is asked several times a week whether he would consider assisted suicide.

He said: "It makes one feel like I should be contemplating it for sake of the health service or my family watching what I'm going through. And I'm afraid that it will extend into the social conscience that people almost expect assisted dying."

There is a real danger of this societal pressure subtly eroding free choice from within. And this is something that no safeguard could ever protect against. Legalising an action normalises it so that it often becomes expected.

Psychiatric euthanasia deaths tripled in the Netherlands.

By Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

This Friday, January 16, the British House of Lords will resume its debate on the assisted dying bill. Today, the Daily Mail published an extensive article on the euthanasia practice in the Netherlands.

The article focuses on the Netherlands euthanasia statistics and recent trends including the fact that psychiatric euthanasia tripled in the Netherlands in 2013. The article states:

The latest official figures also revealed a 15 per cent surge in the number of euthanasia deaths from 4,188 cases in 2012 to 4,829 cases last year. 

The incremental rise is consistent with a 13 per cent increase in 2012, an 18 per cent rise in 2011, 19 per cent in 2010 and 13 per cent in 2009. 

The rise is also likely to confirm the fears of Dutch regulator Theo Boer who told the Daily Mail that he expected to see euthanasia cases smash the 6,000 barrier in 2014. 

Overall, deaths by euthanasia, which officially account for three per cent of all deaths in the Netherlands, have increased by 151 per cent in just seven years.

The statistics also indicate that of the 4829 euthanasia deaths in 2013, about 3600 were people with cancer, 97 were people with dementia and 42 were people with psychiatric issues.

Peter Saunders

Dr Peter Saunders, a founder of the Care Not Killing Alliance, told the Daily Mail that the experience with euthanasia in the Netherlands indicates that euthanasia is impossible to effectively regulate.

‘What we are seeing in the Netherlands is “incremental extension”, the steady intentional escalation of numbers with a gradual widening of the categories of patients to be included.’ 

...there was a similar pattern of increasing numbers of assisted suicide and euthanasia in the US state of Oregon, Switzerland, and Belgium. 

‘The lessons are clear. Once you relax the law on euthanasia or assisted suicide steady extension will follow as night follows day.’

Theo Boer

The article then interviews Professor Theo Boer, who was a member of Euthanasia Review Committee in the Netherlands for 9 years, recently changed his mind and now opposes euthanasia.

Professor Boer, who has reviewed 4,000 cases of euthanasia in his role as a regulator, told Parliament in the summer: ‘Don’t go there.’ 

Once a firm advocate of euthanasia, he said that he now the Dutch were ‘terribly wrong’ to think they could control it.

Writing in the Daily Mail, he said his country has witnessed an ‘explosive increase’ in the numbers of euthanasia deaths since 2007 and that he expected the number of such deaths this year to hit 6,000. 

He was also gravely concerned at the extension of killing to new classes of people, including the demented and the depressed. ‘Some slopes truly are slippery,’ he said.

The article then examing the experience with euthanasia in Belgium.

Doctors in neighbouring Belgium, which this year legalised euthanasia for children, are now killing an average of five people every day by euthanasia, according to latest figures, with a 27 per cent surge in the number of euthanasia deaths in the last year alone. 

In one of the most shocking cases, a Brussels man last week described how he arranged the double euthanasia of his octogenarian parents who wanted to die because they were afraid of loneliness.

The article concludes by explaining that the Netherlands have now interpreted the term "unbearable suffering" to apply to mental anguish. The article states:

It has also emerged that a Dutch woman in her 80s was killed by her doctors just because she did not want to live in a care home. 

The case is the first to be referred to Dutch prosecutors by regulators since euthanasia was legalised in Holland 12 years ago.

The British House of Lords needs to listen to the experience of Professor Boer and reject the assisted dying bill.

Links to more information:

• Theo Boer: "Assisted suicide: Don't go there."
• Netherlands 2013 euthanasia report.
• Dutch euthanasia clinic injects woman who didn't want to live in a nursing home.

Help Not Dead Yet UK defeat the assisted suicide bill.

Join the Not Dead Yet UK thunderclap to unleash tweets, facebook and social media messages in opposition to the assisted suicide bill at the same time on Friday January 16, the day when the House of Lords will be yet again discussing and amending the assisted dying bill.

Not Dead Yet UK has been using thunderclap for the past year and it has enabled them to win the social media battle. The assisted suicide lobby has caught onto this and have copied them. Instead of physically protesting on Friday, Not Dead Yet UK are having a virtual protest which includes writing to peers and signing up to their Thunderclap. Please use your networks to ensure we have a virtual presence opposing the assisted suicide bill on Friday?

Link to thunderclap: https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/21181-opposing-an-assisted-dying-law

The Not Dead Yet UK Thunderclap just went online so only a few have signed up but that will soon change with your help. 

The Thunderclap is set to go off  just before the Lords debate begins in London England at 9.30 am (GMT) on Friday 16th January.

That is the same as 4:30 am (Toronto/EST) or 5:30 pm (Sydney Australia)

Many thanks for your continued help in this campaign.

Liz Carr – Not Dead Yet UK

Senior's death on floor of her home raises questions around care

This article was first published in Advocate Daily.

The case of a Winnipeg man accused of leaving his fallen, elderly mother on the floor of her home where she then died is a “horrifying” example of why a process is needed to ensure all Canadian seniors have proper care, says Toronto health and human rights lawyer Hugh Scher.

Ron Siwicki, 62, was arrested Dec. 17 and charged with criminal negligence causing death and failing to provide the necessaries of life after the death of his 89-year-old mother, CBC reports.

Siwicki's lawyers have said the woman did not want to continue her life, and did not want her son to call for help. Siwicki covered her with a blanket on the floor and fed her nutritional drinks and water until she died, says the report.

“We really need to take steps to ensure that seniors are not effectively left in situations where they are ultimately deprived of the basic necessities of life and neglected,” Scher tells CBC News. Listen to Scher on the World at Six (Item begins at 13:09). As counsel to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and past chair of human rights for the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, Scher has been involved in several precedent end-of-life cases and notes that this should never have been one.

In an interview with AdvocateDaily.com, Scher says the case raises questions around end-of-life wishes and care.

“How far can this really go?” he says. “Does it go to the point where we can just allow senior citizens to be left to lay and die on their floors at home after they’ve fallen? Or are we to take appropriate care to ensure there is dignified living and dignified death?”

While debates around end-of-life care are nothing new, Scher says the Siwicki case is particularly disturbing.

“I was surprised and horrified at the notion that this is how we’re going to treat our seniors; this is how we’re going to treat those who are vulnerable and in our care, to simply leave them to die on the floor with only the most basic of food and water, and without any basic pain and symptom management,” he says. “This is a very concerning proposition as it’s clearly contrary to basic human rights obligations and to basic care obligations that we all owe as citizens and as people of this country, particularly those who are in positions of trust and authority relative to their loved ones or are healthcare providers.”

Scher tells AdvocateDaily.com that steps need to be taken to ensure “we don’t neglect or abuse people, that people are not left to simply rot to death and that we do not effectively deprive people of the necessities of life both contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada and our most basic legal and moral obligations as Canadians.”

A cultural shift, says Scher, has contributed to society’s changing views on assisted suicide.

“It’s really disrespecting – to a greater extent than before – human beings and human life in a manner that really does put people who are vulnerable and in the care of others at risk. There must be exceptional efforts taken, I think, to ensure that neglect and abuse are avoided," says Scher.

Scher links this societal shift to the decline of fundamental social institutions like family, religion and medicine.

“We have historically believed that the third-party killing of people is wrong,” says Scher.

“The changing attitude in this area reflects a clear breakdown in some of our most basic social institutions, be they family, be they the medical supports that people have earned the right to depend on, or be they the religious and other moral pillars that have historically served as the basis both for our laws and behaviour in society."

• The Siwicki case in Winnipeg does not highlight the euthanasia debate.

Human Error led to Euthanasia of Rescued dogs.

By Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

NBC news has reported that the Dallas Animal Services (DAS) is investigating the accidental deaths of four rescued dogs by euthanasia.

I have rarely commented on the euthanasia of animals, but this case outlines the reality of legalizing euthanasia for humans. In case you ask, we have a beautiful golden-doodle at home.

The news story states that four Aussie mix dogs were to be placed in foster homes after being rescued from a possible hoarding situation but died by euthanasia instead, two days later, on New Year's day.

Dr Cate McManus, the operations manager for DAS stated:

"These lives were lost as a result of human error,"

Jody Jones a manager at DAS stated in a news conference:

"There are safeguards within the daily intake procedures and outcome procedures for the division that would have safeguarded against these animals from being inappropriately euthanized," 

"If they had been followed, to the changes that have been made, then yes these animals would still be alive today."

The NBC news article concluded:

Assisted dying would turn doctor's into executioners.

A majority of Britons may support the Bill, but that's also true of the death penalty

I was going through past articles from and I came across this article that was originally published in the Independent on July 18, 2014. Alex Schadenberg

Kevin Yuill

By Kevin Yuill

Clayton Lockett’s death by lethal injection earlier this year in Oklahoma brought a storm of criticism of Oklahoma’s death penalty procedures. Lockett mumbled, writhed, blinked his eyes and licked his lips throughout the procedure and took over 30 minutes to die. The Los Angeles Times observed: “The Oklahoma case is sure to be cited as strong evidence that state prison authorities cannot be trusted to capably administer lethal injections.”

But today the House of Lords is debating whether to invest British doctors with the same powers as the Oklahoma state prison authorities. Doctors will effectively become executioners if Lord Falconer’s Bill becomes law.

Why do liberals who, like me, think that capital punishment is unacceptable in a civilized society rush to support Falconer’s Bill? Beyond simply the method of dispatching people, there are many other similarities. If the premeditated killing of a human being by the state, even for the best possible reasons, is wrong, assisted dying is wrong.

Of course, there are important differences between assisted dying and capital punishment. But the similarities bear scrutiny in relation to today’s debate.

The Historical Kevorkian

This article was published on the National Review Online on January 9, 2015.

B

Wesley Smith

y Wesley Smith

I am often asked for interviews by students who are writing papers about the assisted suicide issue. I am always happy to oblige. Most ask why I oppose assisted suicide and whether I think guidelines can prevent the slippery slope. But, the other day, I was contacted by a high-schooler writing a paper about something I had never considered: the historical significance of Jack Kevorkian.

Having cut my anti-euthanasia advocacy teeth during Kevorkian’s assisted suicide spree in the 1990s, I was deeply involved in opposing everything he represented. But until I received this interview request, I had never considered what his legacy might be.

It is too soon to answer what, if any, historical significance Kevorkian will have. I hope none. If we are a moral society in one hundred years, he will be remembered—if he is remembered at all—as a crass social outlaw, operating at a time of cultural hesitancy, who preyed upon the despairing in pursuit of his own nihilistic ends. But there’s a chance we will not be a moral society. So, I did my best to put on my “objective hat” and give the most dispassionate answer I could.

Here is part of what I wrote:

The Siwicki case in Winnipeg does not highlight the euthanasia debate.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On December 17, 2014, Ron Siwicki was arrested and charged in the death of his mother, Betty Siwicki (89) who was living with dementia. Ron Siwicki was charged with criminal negligence causing death and failing to provide the necessities of life.

An article by Thomas Wolkam falsely compared this case to the euthanasia debate in Canada.

Due to a publication ban, the information around the case is not clear but the basic story suggests that Betty Siwicki was injured, after a fall, sometime in November. Since she did not want medical treatment she was left, dying on the floor, for a period of time until she died, in the home that she shared with her son. 

Ron Siwicki claims that he fulfilled his mother's wishes.

This case does not hightlight the euthanasia debate in Canada but rather it highlights the issues concerning the obligation to provide basic personal care and the basic necessaries of life.

Every Canadian has the right to refuse medical treatment. If Betty Siwicki was competent to refuse medical treatment, her wishes would have been honoured. In this case, Betty Siwicki was left on the floor of her home to die.

The law does not permit Canadians to neglect or abandon their elderly parents or their children by denying them basic personal care or the basic necessaries of life.

The euthanasia debate is not about whether people should have the right to die with a minimal pain, as the article falsely states. Nobody is arguing that effective pain and symptom management should be denied to anyone.

The euthanasia debate is about whether doctors should have the right to lethally inject people. Currently, no one has the right in law to cause death, or be involved with causing the death of another person.

Assisted Suicide campaigners’ deaths prove we do not need to change assisted suicide laws

By Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick (OBE), Director of EPC - International.

W

Kevin Fitzpatrick
at European Parliament.

e do not ‘speak ill of the dead’. De mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est, a mortuary aphorism that dates from at least the 4th century is, I suspect, rooted in a superstitious fear that the dead may come back to harm us if we say bad things about them; perhaps that we might ourselves be condemned to wander as ‘lost souls’ in revenge for badmouthing those who are gone. We may, at times, wish to honour the memory of someone we couldn’t stand in life, or whose works and their consequences we hated; but if we are to avoid dishonesty, insincerity, we must have the courage to stand by what we said when they were alive. We can still be properly respectful in how we speak.

Of course the rule does not apply universally, but it seems we only allow ourselves to tell hard truths if the dead person was truly bad, a mass murderer. Maybe that comes from recognising that we are all fragile, given to making mistakes, doing some bad things at times.

In any case, it is surely possible to distinguish between the person and their legacy. I met and debated with Debbie Purdy a couple of times and I thought she was wrong – she made what is called a ‘category mistake’ – mixing up the category of one individual saying ‘I want to die now’ with the idea that such a wish must be enshrined in law. Individual wishes are just that – individual. Laws cover every citizen of a state or jurisdiction in which they are passed - which means they are a whole different category. It was her campaigning for this category mistake to be legalised that brought us into opposition.

After hours of grilling by Tony Nicklinson, in an interview he had demanded, I asked him: ‘Say you get your way tomorrow and the law is changed, and the next day, even just one innocent person dies as a result - what would you say?’ He would not respond at that point, and terminated the interview.

But that is the point for me: if, as a campaigner, you cannot guarantee the safety of others, then the death of innocent people under such laws, even that threat, should stop the campaign in its tracks, force campaigners to re-assess what they are doing.

The legacy of such campaigners, three of whom (two in Britain, one in Australia) died ‘peacefully’ in hospice or palliative care settings over Christmas, is surely the biggest, final irony. These three died ‘good deaths’ without any change in law. They have proved there is no need for a change in law in the UK, in Australia, anywhere in the world.

Stay of Execution (euthanasia) for Belgian prisoner

This article was published on the HOPE Australia blog on January 7, 2015.

By Paul Russell, The Director of Hope Australia and the Vice Chair of EPC - International

Paul Russell

Frank Van Den Bleeken's 'executioners have second thoughts.

Frank Van Den Bleeken was scheduled to be killed by euthanasia in a Belgian prison on January 11th after receiving approval from the Belgian courts. However, in mixed messages about the reasoning, within the last 24 hours, Van Den Bleeken’s request to die will now not be honoured.

A number of media outlets reported that the doctors who had agreed to commit the act of euthanasia had withdrawn. Shortly after, The Belgian Minister of Justice, Koen Geens announced that Van Den Bleeken would be transferred to a new psychiatric facility in Ghent and, afterwards, to a long-stay facility in The Netherlands.

It is hard not to be cynical about this ‘eleventh-hour reprieve’. Van Den Bleeken had, according to reports, only received one psychiatric intervention in his entire 30 year incarceration. He had previously asked to be transferred to the above mentioned Dutch facility and had been refused. He had been engaging the Belgian authorities for more than two years for access to euthanasia.

It is understood that up to 1000 prisoners with psychiatric disorders are housed in the general prison population with no support for their conditions. The European Court of Human Rights has condemned Belgium’s lack of humane facilities fourteen times in recent years. Little wonder that following the publicity around Van Den Bleeken 15 other inmates have also requested euthanasia.

Even Belgium’s euthanasia supremo Dr Wim Distelmans expressed reservations about this case. In an opinion article in De Morgen, Distelmans writes: I decide no longer to act as physician for euthanasia because I think some (legal) due diligence are not respected. The unbearable suffering must be caused by the incurable (psychiatric) disorder, which is only partially true. Additionally, all therapeutic options should be offered - if the patient wants - including palliative treatments that do not cure but provide a better quality of life.

Here Distelmans is reflecting upon the structure of the Belgian euthanasia law. However, Distelmans’ reference to other ‘therapeutic options’ will be considered to be little more than a bad joke for people like Tom Mortier whose mother was euthanased by Distelmans when suffering treatable clinical depression. The addition of ‘if the patient wants’ as a qualifier in Distelmans’ objection is rather telling. What if Van Den Bleeken doesn’t want to go to the Dutch facility? Does he then qualify for euthanasia? Again, a cynical view would suggest that Distelman is simply trying to distance himself from yet another controversial euthanasia death.

Australia's Dr Death still Mr Death after medical suspension appeal lost.

This article was published on the HOPE Australia blog on January 7, 2015.

Australian Medical Board Tribunal dismisses Nitschke’s appeal

Paul Russell debating Philip Nitschke

By Paul Russell, Director of HOPE Australia.

In a media release today from Exit International, suspended doctor, Philip Nitschke, often dubbed ‘Dr Death’, notes that the Northern Territory Health Professional Review Tribunal has rejected his appeal against the suspension of his medical practice certificate by the South Australian Medical Board.

Nitschke was suspended from medical practice in July 2014 after an ABC Western Australia TV interview regarding the death of Perth man, Nigel Brayley drew the ire of suicide prevention organisations. The medical board said it was necessary to suspend Nitschke immediately over the need to ‘protect public health or safety’. Nitschke appealed the suspension on a number of grounds; most notably that he had no professional relationship and therefore no duty of care as a doctor towards Nigel Brayley’s welfare in regards to his decision to commit suicide.

The tribunal appeal hearings, originally to be heard in Adelaide, South Australia, were eventually heard in Darwin, Northern Territory over three days in November after Nitschke successfully argued that the place of his medical registration was the appropriate place for the hearings.

Nitschke says in his press statement that he intends to appeal the suspension decision to the NT Supreme Court claiming that the Tribunal made ‘clear errors in law’.

The suspension itself was made pending the hearing of 12 complaints lodged with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency over the last three years against Nitschke, including one by this author over two years ago in respect to the promotion of suicide apparatus using nitrogen.

As the Belgian Euthanasia Turns: Stay of execution (euthanasia) for Belgian rapist.

This article was published by Wesley Smith on his blog on January 5.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

What a soap opera.

The planned euthanasia killing of the Belgian murderer and rapist has been put on hold because the death doctor came down with an unexplained case of cold feet. From the De Staandard story (Google translation):

Frank Van Den Bleeken Sunday will not get euthanasia because of unbearable psychological suffering. Reported the Minister of Justice Koen Geens. The doctors who would assist in the Van Den Bleeken euthanasia procedure have dropped out. 

Minister of Justice Koen Geens late Frank Van Den Bleeken transferring Turnhout to the recently launched forensic psychiatric center (FPC) in Ghent. This center is not suitable for long stays, but for people who can be integrated into society. There Bleeken Van Den will be observed. 

The idea is an observation with a view to the appropriate treatment or the development of a custom care process. If our country would not prove possible treatment, Van Den Bleeken is probably transferred to the Netherlands.

I suspect this planned killing came too close to capital punishment, so disdained in Western Europe. Hence, a rare bout of conscience among Belgian death doctors.

It’s all so surreal. Let’s recap the current state of Belgian euthanasia, shall we?

• Euthanasia for a botched sex change surgery? Yes!
• Euthanasia of the mentally ill coupled with organ harvesting? Yes!
• Euthanasia of psychiatric patient sexually exploited by her psychiatrist? Yes!

But so far, no quasi-capital punishment. We’ll see if this shaky death boundary sticks.

CBC interviewer fails to ask tough questions on Senate euthanasia bill.

This article was published on the Protection of Conscience Project blog on January 6.

By Sean Murphy, the administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project.

A bill has been introduced in the Canadian Senate by Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth to legalize physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. Bill S-225’s definition of of “assist” is of particular interest. It means “to provide the person with the knowledge or means to commit suicide, or to perform an act with the intent to cause the person’s death.” Consistent with this, an “assisting physician” is one “who provides assistance” to a patient seeking euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.

This indicates that indirectly facilitating suicide even by providing information for that purpose is equivalent to more direct forms of assistance, like providing a lethal prescription. Further, it implies that both providing information to facilitate suicide and actually killing someone are of comparable legal or moral significance. Many physicians and health care workers who object to assisted suicide and euthanasia would agree, and, for that reason, would refuse to refer or otherwise help a patient find someone willing to kill him or assist him in committing suicide.

The point was overlooked during an interview of Senator Ruth by Evan Solomon on CBC Television’s Power and Politics (2 December, 2014). After discussing the contents of the bill in general terms and asking Senator Ruth about her reasons for introducing it, Solomon raised the issue of conscientious objection:

Evan Solomon: A doctor might be watching this, and say, you know, “Great piece of legislation. What do you do if, what will you do to me if I don’t want to do this?” 

Senator Ruth: Nothing. No doctor is coerced to do this, no patient is coerced to do this. This is about choice. The choice of doctors who want to assist in it and their protection ...

Solomon failed to ask the tough questions. Among them: 

1. If physicians will not be forced to kill patients, will they, nonetheless, be forced to help patients find someone who will? 
2. Why is it that the bill is about the choice and the protection of doctors who want to help to kill patients, and not about the choice and protection of those who refuse? 
3. When abortion was legalized, politicians and activists promised that no physician would be forced to provide abortions, but refused to include a protection of conscience provision in the law.1 Now the College of Physicians of Ontario is proposing a policy that would compel physicians to provide abortions or help patients obtain them.2 Dr. Marc Gabel, chair of the working group that produced the draft policy, warns that physicians who refuse to do this should get out of family practice.3 As written, the policy could be applied equally to euthanasia and assisted suicide. Why does Senator Ruth think that objecting physicians will not be coerced – if not sooner, then later?

Notes:

1. Murphy, S. “Promises, promises. Canadian law reformers promise tolerance, freedom of conscience:What happens after the law is changed is another story.” Protection of Conscience Project

2. “Ontario physicians to be forced to do what they believe to be wrong: Draft policy demands that objectors provide or refer. Policy would apply to euthanasia, if legalized.” Protection of Conscience Project news release, 10 December, 2014

3. Swan, M. “Catholics doctors who reject abortion told to get out of family medicine.” The Catholic Register, 17 December, 2014. (Accessed 2014-12-19)

Scotland may kill assisted suicide bill in committee.

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Edinburgh News is reporting that the Scottish assisted suicide bill may die in the Health and Sport committee. The hearings will begin on January 13.

The group - Doctors for assisted suicide are concerned that too many groups opposing assisted suicide have been invited to present to the government committee. The Edinburgh News reported that: 

Duncan McNeil MSP, the convener of the health and sport committee, said it would consider all evidence placed before it and give it equal weight.

When reading Scotland's assisted suicide bill it is clear that the language of the bill will kill.

Section 1 of the bill says:

It is not a crime (of any kind) to assist a person to commit suicide.

This means that anyone can do it.

Talking Points and 2014 year in review.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In 2014 there were many great articles opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide. Here are some of the key articles published from different perspectives in 2014.

People with disabilities oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Kevin Fitzpatrick

●  January, Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick, a spokesperson for Not Dead Yet UK and the new Director of EPC International wrote an article - Legalizing euthanasia threatens people with disabilities. 

●  In February, Stephen Drake, the researcher for Not Dead Yet explained how the New Hampshire assisted suicide bill definition of "Terminal Condition" was broad enough to include anyone with a chronic condition.

●  In April, Jim Derksen, a founder of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities wrote an about euthanasia and eugenics - Not Dead Yet.

●  In June, John Kelly, from Second Thoughts wrote - Assisted Suicide: Just Too Dangerous.

●  In July, Baroness Jane Campbell from the UK wrote - Assisted Suicide could lure me to the grave.

●  In October Catherine Frazee wrote - Assisted suicide debate masks disability prejudice.

●  In November, Marilyn Golden from the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund wrote - Assisted Suicide is Bad Medicine.

Depression, euthanasia and assisted suicide.

●  In March Patricia, who had lived for many years with chronic depression, contacted us. She is concerned with the effect that assisted suicide has on suicidal people. After discussing her concerns, she sent us this article Assisted Suicide and Depression: A Personal Experience. Thank you Patricia for sharing your story. 

●  In September, Tom Mortier launched a court case at the European Court of Human Rights concerning the euthanasia death of his depressed mother.

Elder abuse, euthanasia and assisted suicide.

●  In Febuary, Washington State lawyer, Margaret Dore, published the article - Guardianship, Elder Abuse and Assisted Suicide: A personal shift in focus.

●  In March, an article written by a Secondary School student from Washington State connected elder abuse to the legalization of assisted suicide. Assisted Suicide has devalued the lives of the elderly in Washington State.

●  In October, disability leader, John Kelly from Second Thoughts wrote - Assisted Suicide laws more dangerous than people acknowledge.

Suicide Prevention and assisted suicide.

●  In January, Susan Martinuk (Calgary Herald), wrote an excellent column - Suicide Prevention at odds with assisted suicide.
●  In July, Paul Russell - the Director of Hope Australia reported: Australian Suicide Prevention groups condemn Nitschke's suicide promotion.
●  In August I wrote the article - Assisted suicide groups linked to suicide promotion website.
●  In November, Margaret Dore, wrote - Assisted suicide and the suicide contagion effect.
●  In December I wrote the article - Brittany Maynard story: a suicide contagion.

Dutch ethicist changes his mind on euthanasia.

●  In July, Professor Theo Boer, a nine year member of a Netherlands Euthanasia Regional Review Committee wrote an article explaining why he changed his mind and now opposes the euthanasia law. EPC contacted Professor Boer and learned that he had originally sent the Daily Mail an article that they did not publish and he gave us permission to publish his article - "Assisted Suicide: Don't Go There"

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide 2014 News:

Belgian rapist to be euthanized

This article was published by Wesley Smith on his blog on January 3, 2015.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

Apparently, the Belgian rapist who wanted euthanasia rather than spend life in jail will be snuffed by a doctor forthwith, in a country that rejects the death penalty. From the RTE News story:

Belgian newspaper De Morgen is reporting Frank Van Den Bleeken, who has spent the past 30 years in jail for repeated rape convictions and a rape murder, will be euthanised in prison in the north-western city of Bruges. “Euthanasia will indeed be implemented,” a justice ministry spokeswoman told the Flemish-language newspaper, which gave the date as 11 January . 

“Now the time has come,” the spokeswoman added. Mr Van Den Bleeken had for years requested that the state help him end his life due to what his lawyer Jos Vander Velpen called “unbearable” psychological suffering. He received the all-clear to be allowed do so last September.

Good grief.

I call cases such as this, “cruel and unusual death with dignity.” The irony is sharp enough to shatter bones.

Here’s the lesson: Once the monster breaks its chain, there are no real limits to euthanasia consciousness.

Links to more information:

Depressed mother died by euthanasia in Belgium. Mortier challenges the law.

By Alex Schadenberg

International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Mortier's mother died by euthanasia in Belgium

Tom Mortier, a chemistry professor, who lost his depressed mother, Godelieva De Troyer, to euthanasia in April 2012, has challenged the Belgian euthanasia law and the doctor who lethally injected his mother by launching a legal challenge at the European Court of Human Rights. 

An article written by Kelsey Harkness and published in the Daily Signal concerns Mortier's case.

Harkness defines the Belgian euthanasia experience by explaining how it has expanded over time. She writes:

Although euthanasia laws originally were designed with terminally ill patients in mind, they have evolved to include persons with mental illness or physical disabilities, those who didn’t or couldn’t consent, and even children. 

In Belgium, where it is now legal for terminally ill children who are in great pain and have parental consent to end their lives, euthanasia results in about one in every 50 deaths.

The article describes Mortier's experience with the euthanasia death of his mother by stating:

Some, such as Tom Mortier, a 38-year-old chemistry professor at Leuven University College in Flanders, say his country has gone too far. 

On April 19, 2012, Mortier’s mother was put to death at age 65 for what doctors called “untreatable depression.” He is appealing to the European Court of Human Rights over the conditions of her death. 

Mortier didn’t find out his mother, Godelieva De Troyer, had been euthanized until he received a phone call the next day asking him to retrieve her body from the morgue. 

“I was completely shocked and traumatized,” Mortier says in an email interview with The Daily Signal.

Godelieva De Troyer

Mortier explains that his mother was living with chronic depression, but her request for euthanasia was based on a relationship break-up.

After her last relationship ended, she broke off contact with me and my children because she was worried that I was the same as my father who committed suicide when I was 5 years old.

Mortier only found out about his mother's euthanasia death, after she died. The doctor who lethally injected De Troyer, Wim Distelmans, is an oncologist who specializes in tumors. The article states:

Mortier says neither Distelmans nor a psychiatrist he consulted to approve the life-ending procedure (also a close friend of Distelmans’) had a previous involvement with his mother’s health. 

In fact, De Troyer’s treating psychiatrist of more than 20 years refused to help her die, maintaining that she did not satisfy the requirements of Belgium law. 

At first Distelmans agreed, and he too declined to help De Troyer end her life.
But after she made a donation of 2,500 euro to Life End Information Forum, an organization he co-founded, Distelmans carried out De Troyer’s request.

Mortier explains that Distelmans, who is also in charge of the government commission that overseas compliance with the euthanasia law, has also received donations from other people before lethally injecting them. Mortier states that Distelmans has a "clear conflict of interest."