Canadian doctors have developed a new technique for treating brain tumors.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

One of the more devastating diagnosis, is to be told that you have a brain tumor. Brittany Maynard died by assisted suicide last year to avoid living with a brain tumor. California legalized assisted suicide in response to the Brittany Maynard campaign. 

Society needs to care for people, not kill them. Everyday improvements in medical technology provide new ways to treat devastating illnesses, such as brain tumors and Parkinsons. 

Researchers at Toronto's Sunnybrook hospital have developed a new technique for treating brain tumors. The difficulty with treating brain tumors is that the brain has a Brain Blood Barrier that naturally protects the brain but also makes it difficult to effectively target brain tumors for treatment. As reported by the Globe and Mail:

The hospital said it made history last week by using a “focused ultrasound” to breach the blood-barrier in the brain to treat patients. 

“The blood-brain barrier (BBB) has been a persistent obstacle to delivering valuable therapies to treat disease such as tumours,” says Dr. Todd Mainprize, principal investigator of the study and neurosurgeon in the Hurvitz Brain Sciences Program at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in a media release. 

“We are encouraged that we were able to temporarily open this barrier in a patient to deliver chemotherapy directly to the brain tumour.” 

The chemotherapy treatment begins with the patient being given injections of micro-bubbles or microscopic bits of air which circulate in the bloodstream. 

Researchers said they then use a state-of-the-art MRI-guided focused low-intensity ultrasound (sound waves) to target blood vessels in the BBB area near the tumour. 

This causes micro-bubbles to shake and temporarily rip holes in the BBB allowing medication to seep into the tumour.

This new treatment technique creates new hope for people with brain tumours and also for people who are living with Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. According to the Globe and Mail:

Scientists said the trial will include six to ten more patients over the coming months to make sure opening the BBB is safe to penetrate. 

The hope is that the new treatment will help patients suffering from brain cancer, Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease. 

“Breaching this barrier opens up a new frontier in treating brain disorders,” says Dr. Neal Kassell, chairman of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation. 

“We are encouraged by the momentum building for the use of focused ultrasound to deliver therapies for a number of brain disorders.”

California Assisted Suicide Opponents Blitz State with Petitions

For Immediate Release

In excess of one million signature forms are now being distributed to thousands of volunteers from all walks of life. StopAssistedSuicide.com

Media Contact: 

Steve Ruiz Communications assistant

Phone: 1-800-924-2490 or Email: info@seniorsagainstsuicide.org

LOS ANGELES, CA - In response to Governor Brown's signing of a controversial 'Right to Die' bill, assisted suicide opponents have launched a referendum to refer the measure to the public for re-examination.

"I have counseled many patients, and it is clear that all of us will face the famous 5 stages of grief at these times, as will our families. It has always been society's responsibility to help and accommodate those in this emotionally vulnerable situation," said Dr. Mark Hoffman, clinical psychologist and spokesperson for Coalition Against Assisted Suicide.

"Physical pain can be treated, but suicidal thoughts are a more subtle yet clear expression of 'psychological pain.' This 'alarm bell' of deeper depression must be assertively addressed. Offering suicidal patients poison in these situations is simply dismissive medicine. It is in direct violation of a physician's oath,"

Petitioners have 90 days to circulate and return 365,800 valid voter signatures by January 4, 2016 to the Secretary of State.

A largely volunteer effort, Hoffman said he will also be using professional petition gatherers. 

"We have an incredible army of volunteers that have come forward when they heard of Brown's signing, and more every day. But many have never done this before, so we want the professional assistance to make sure we do this right."

The same week Brown signed the controversial measure, he vetoed the so-called, "Right to Try" bill, which would have let similarly situated patients try medical treatments still in testing but unapproved by the FDA. "It is a cynical view of individual human beings and their situation," said Hoffman, "to dismiss and crush a person's hope by denying them access to cutting-edge and simultaneously reinforce and indulge feelings of emotional emptiness." The death measure had failed during normal session, but was manipulated into a new special session designed to address MediCAL costs. "Nice touch from a Governor not known for his thrift. But the fewer patients for MediCAL the better, eh?" quipped Hoffman.

The suicide opponents have established a website for, 'information and education on the issue' : stopassistedsuicide.com

Hoffman is optimistic of success. "Because we share those common emotions surrounding the death of a loved one, my experience is that everyone may initially be supportive of accommodating those emotions. But when they study the facts, that support rapidly drops.

"Indulging emotions without recognizing the full implications has always proved a dangerous course. When you are then authorizing medicine to be used to kill in order to satisfy those emotions, well that is quite literally a deadly course."

• California seniors group collecting signatures to overturn assisted suicide law.

The Coalition Against Assisted Suicide represents people of all backgrounds and faiths. We are alarmed at the very serious implications of authorizing medicine to be used against a patient. Professionals, patient's rights organizations, disability groups, churches and faith groups of all backgrounds are uniting to say, StopAssistedSuicide.com.

Coalition Against Assisted Suicide 'Stop ABX2-15' | 800 924-2490 

Commentary: Why disabled people like me fear assisted suicide

This article was published by Syracuse.com on November 6, 2015. The disability rights group, Not Dead Yet also republished this article.

Stephanie Woodward

By Stephanie Woodward

Having been born with a physical disability, I am all too familiar with the overwhelming number of people who feel that decisions should be made for me, not by me. I know the tactics used to coerce disabled people into doing what someone else thinks is best because they've been used on me. I am well aware of the "ableist'' notions that society holds – that having a disability is a tragedy, that we're a waste of resources and a burden on society, and that we're "brave" to live with our disabilities (which essentially means that most people would rather die than be "brave" and live with a disability like me).

We're often regarded as incapable of making our own decisions and unworthy of respect. However, when one disabled person announces they want to die, they're lauded in the press and on social media. Sara Myers, for example, has Lou Gehrig's disease and has received a slew of media attention for wanting assisted suicide because she began to experience disability. Media focused on Myers's use of a wheelchair and her need for assistance in showering and toileting to demonstrate why assisted suicide should be available to her. For full disclosure, I use a wheelchair and have needed assistance with both showering and toileting in my life, and I expect I'll need more assistance as I age. I take it very personally when media and society lists these as valid reasons to want to die.

With all of these negative stereotypes and stigmas against disabled people, combined with the praise a disabled person receives when they announce that they want to die, nothing scares me more than the legalization of assisted suicide. (David M. Rubin column, Oct. 30.)

Legalized assisted suicide has a disproportionate impact on disabled people. While everyone else receives suicide prevention, people with disabilities and certain illnesses and old people will receive a fast pass because our lives are viewed as less worthy.

Current legislation proposed in New York to legalize assisted suicide not only has no realistic way of protecting from mistake, coercion or abuse, but also lists no reporting requirements. This means that any doctor could prescribe a lethal dose and any person could administer that dose to kill a person, with medical confidentiality preventing any oversight. No independent witness is required during the death of an individual, so there's no way to ensure that the individual administered the lethal dose himself or herself. In a world where abuse of people with disabilities and seniors is rampant, this alone is cause for concern.

For example, an adult child of an ill 80-year-old woman could accompany her mother to the doctor to obtain the lethal dose, and then administer it without her mother's consent.

Situations like this have already happened.

Kate Cheney, an 85-year-old woman with early dementia, was brought to her doctor by her daughter to obtain a prescription for the lethal dose in Oregon where assisted suicide is legal. The doctor refused to write the prescription. Unfortunately, that did not prevent Ms. Cheney's death. Instead, Ms. Cheney's managed care provider found a different doctor to prescribe the lethal dose. This second doctor had Ms. Cheney undergo a psychiatric exam and found that Ms. Cheney lacked the capacity to make this decision, so the lethal dose was, again, not prescribed. Cheney's daughter became very angry and demanded that her mother undergo another evaluation. This psychologist deemed Cheney competent, but noted that Ms. Cheney's "choices may be influenced by her family's wishes and her daughter, Erika, may be somewhat coercive." Soon thereafter Ms. Cheney took the lethal dose and died.

My concerns about assisted death are shared widely throughout the disability community. In fact, every major disability rights organization that has taken a stance on assisted suicide opposes its legalization. Our concerns extend further than abuse.

As I mentioned, disabled people frequently encounter members of society who believe that they know what is best for us. The medical community is one of the biggest offenders. The medical community has historically encouraged parents not to have or raise their disabled children, has prevented disabled people from reproducing by forcibly sterilizing us without our consent, and has forced us into nursing facilities and other institutions simply because of our disabilities. To have this community in charge of deciding who can access assisted suicide is incredibly troubling.

In recent years, plenty of medical professionals have deemed that assisted suicide is appropriate solely if a person is disabled. For example, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, most of Dr. Jack Kevorkian's victims were not terminally ill, they simply had disabilities. Furthermore, the top reasons given for wanting assisted suicide are not pain or fear of future pain, but feeling like a "burden on others," experiencing a "loss of autonomy," or a "loss of dignity." These factors are all disability related, as disabled people are often made to feel like burdens because we need assistance, which also contributes to the perceived loss of autonomy and dignity.

I, along with my allies in the disability community, urge all New Yorkers to understand that assisted suicide is not a "right" to be glorified, but a double standard that is lethal to communities that are already marginalized, oppressed and abused. We deserve the same suicide prevention that nondisabled people enjoy, because despite the widespread belief otherwise, I assure you, our lives are worth living.

Stephanie Woodward is a graduate of Syracuse University College of Law and is the director of advocacy at the Center for Disability Rights in Rochester.

Assisted Suicide: Nurses in the Line of Fire

This article was published by Nancy Valko on her blog on November 5, 2015

Nancy Valko

By Nancy Valko

Years ago, the newly legalized Oregon physician-assisted suicide law caused much discussion at my St. Louis hospital. Some of my fellow nurses said that they supported such a law but when I asked them if they would participate, they were shocked. “No, of course, the doctor would have to do it!”, one exclaimed. Some nurses, like perhaps most people, thought assisted suicide would only occur at a patient’s home with his or her family sitting with the patient watching the drinking of the lethal overdose.

I explained that in hospitals or hospices, would we expect the assisting doctors to be present when the patient ingested the lethal overdose, not to mention staying with the patient and family during the time it could take for the patient to die? My colleague agreed that nurses, not doctors, would probably bear the brunt of the “dirty work” of assisted suicide.

Back in 2000 and three years after Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide, I saw an article from Nursing Spectrum magazine titled “Assisted Suicide: What Role for Nurses?” that stated:

Initially, when the law was designed, the assumption was that physicians would be the first ones to explore PAS with patients,” says Pam Matthews, RN, BSN, administrator for Evergreen Hospice, Albany, OR, “but in reality, nurses are usually the ones in the line of fire…. Much of nurses’ roles lies behind the scenes long before the drama of PAS unfolds. Home care and hospice nurses actively help patients understand their rights, acting as advocates for those who are considering PAS.”

How many nurses are really willing to “advocate” for physician-assisted suicide? The article states:

“Before PAS became law, it was publicly debated, and we performed surveys of our hospice teams’ feelings on the issue,” Matthews says. “We found that most nurses felt strongly that patients should have the choice of PAS, although most said they would not participate in the event.”

Recently, I spoke to a nurse in Washington State who is against physician-assisted suicide law about nurses’ experience with physician-assisted suicide in her state. She referred me to a 2014 study in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management titled “Dignity, Death, and Dilemmas: A Study of Washington Hospices and Physician-Assisted Death”. (click on link and click PDF to read the full text)

While 21% of the Washington hospices in this study, mostly religiously-affiliated, refused any involvement in assisted suicide, this study sadly confirms the how legalization has affected both hospices’ and nurses’ role in assisted suicide.

Here are some excerpts:

Germany prohibits the commercialization of assisted suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The German Bundestag has approved assisted suicide for altruistic reasons. The law is similar to the Swiss law except that it prohibits the commercialization of assisted suicide.

The fact is that the Swiss law permits assisted suicide for altruistic reasons, but the groups that facilitate assisted suicide actually developed over time, rather than the law simply permitting it. Now that Germany officially permits assisted suicide, the question is how will it develop over time. The German RT news reported:

MPs in Germany have rejected a bill that would have made commercial assisted suicides legal, instead passing a new law punishing such practices with up to three years imprisonment, even if doctors perform the procedure to relieve suffering. 

The bill, which was upheld with 360 out of 602 votes, criminalizes organizations that assist patients in terminating their own lives for profit. It is meant to prevent the commercialization of the procedure as a “suicide business.” 

However, single instances of suicide assistance – by a doctor or relative – do not contradict the new law.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is concerned that now that the door is officially opened to assisted suicide, how long will it take for the courts or future parliaments to expand the law?

Germany has not legalized euthanasia.
 

Doctors group to challenge Quebec euthanasia law in the courts.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Quebec group, Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice and Lisa D'Amico, a woman with a disability, have launched a legal challenge to the Quebec euthanasia law that is scheduled to begin on December 10.

The Canadian Press reported that Domique Talarico, the lawyer for the group stated that:

“The Supreme Court has not ruled on the Quebec law, has not addressed the Quebec law, because that law was not part of the questions to be decided,” 

Talarico said that a patient’s consent cannot be free and informed if they have not been offered all palliative care options, which is not always the case in the province due to a lack of accessibility to certain treatments, drugs and services. 

“The actual state of the health system, disease screening, the state of health care and palliative care in Quebec are possibly more deficient than anywhere else in Canada. The context of care is part of the totality of evidence to be presented to Superior Court,”

Dr Paul Saba

Dr Paul Saba, the leader of the group stated:

“As a doctor, I can’t accept something that is non-medical, non-scientific,”

“It even goes against my code of ethics in Quebec. Under the code of ethics, if we have treatments to offer or an operation, we must always use the least dangerous.”

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition hopes that the Quebec court will fast-track this case based on the fact that lethal injections will be able to begin occurring on December 10 this year.

Tom Mortier: Surely you’re joking, Mr Denton - Belgian euthanasia is a problem free zone?

This article was published by Mercatornet on their Careful blog on November 4, 2015

Tom Mortier in Australia

By Tom Mortier

In May 2015 Paul Russell, of Hope, an Australian coalition opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide, invited me to come to Adelaide to speak about my experiences with the Belgian euthanasia law. It is now well known that my physically healthy mother was killed by a lethal injection given by the Flemish euthanasia practitioner Dr Wim Distelmans.

At the conference, Paul told me that someone called Andrew Denton wanted to interview me. I had never heard of Mr Denton, but Paul told me that he was very famous and that it would be a good opportunity to talk with him. So I did. I don’t remember much from the interview, but he did ask searching questions.

I told him that a staff writer from The New Yorker was also working on a piece about the suicide of my mother. When it was eventually published, I forwarded it to him because it gave a good insight into the Flemish euthanasia lobby.

When I spoke with Mr Denton in Adelaide, I didn’t realise that he was so well-known in Australia. He had even been featured pulling faces on the cover of Rolling Stone. I learned that he was both a comedian and a real television celebrity.

Tom Mortier's mother

But I was very disappointed in his treatment of euthanasia and assisted suicide. He mentioned me during a radio interview but he said that the story of my late mother was sad, but did not prove that the Belgian euthanasia law wasn’t working. Australia needed an euthanasia law as soon as possible and Belgium (and the Netherlands) is the model, he declared.

Most citizens support the law and “only five percent” of all deaths there are due to lethal injections, he claims. For Denton, it is all about “free choice”. He told TV viewers that he had attended a big “anti-euthanasia” conference and that everything that the people had been telling him during that conference was a lie. Belgian euthanasia is a problem-free zone.

No problems, Mr Denton? Really? Are you speaking as a comedian or as a journalist? Perhaps you should watch a bit more Australian television.

An SBS television documentary recently demonstrated how well euthanasia works in my country. An 85-year-old woman committed suicide on camera with the assistance of Dr Marc Van Hoey, an euthanasia advocate and chairman of the right-to-die with dignity movement in Flanders. Although the Belgian euthanasia law states that a psychiatrist should give advice (not necessarily approval) in the case of a non-terminal illness and a third doctor should be involved in the euthanasia procedure, Van Hoey said that these other doctors were not needed. After giving scores of lethal injections, he had enough experience to decide whether the old woman could die on camera.

Why involve family members? It was the woman’s choice. Her estranged daughter now had a nice memento: her mother dying on YouTube.

The SBS journalist interviewed me but when he tried to interview the co-chairman of the euthanasia commission, Wim Distelmans, he was snubbed.

The event at which Distelmans brushed him off gives you an idea of his stature in Belgium. He was being honoured as the Flemish “Humanist of the Year” and in his thank-you speech he praised his friends in the Flemish media. Unlike the foreign media, they understand what euthanasia is really about.

Auschwitz

In fact, only the foreign media does what Belgian journalists are paid to do: ask hard questions. The German magazine Der Spiegel followed Distelmans to Auschwitz when he organized an instructional tour to show the differences between his euthanasia policy and the killings of the Nazis.

Der Spiegel pointed out that the good doctor had been responsible for the death of hundreds, if not thousands, of people. But he told the magazine that a lethal injection should be seen as an act of “unconditional love”.

Now, can you, Mr Denton, after your eight months of research, explain the following: I loved my mother for more than 30 years and I wanted her to live; Dr Distelmans loved her so much – “unconditionally” – that after a few brief consultations over six months he gave her a lethal injection. It’s a funny sort of love our doctors have in Belgium, Mr Denton.

Mr Denton’s eight months of research also failed to uncover the corrupt conflicts of interest in Belgium’s Federal Evaluation and Control Commission for Euthanasia. Dr Distelmans has been the chairman or co-chairman of the commission since 2002, when euthanasia became legal.

The commission is stacked with euthanasia advocates like Gilles Genicot and Jacqueline Herremans who adore him. Distelmans has sent hundreds, if not thousands of cases for review to a commission of which he is the chairman. How is that possible?

According to Herremans, Distelmans is in the room, but says nothing when his own cases are discussed. Genicot told the SBS reporter that the euthanasia law was all about trust between the doctor and the patient and that we couldn’t put doctors on trial.

So, Mr Denton, does Australia really need euthanasia doctors? I heard that Australia’s Dr Death, Philip Nitschke, is now doing comedy and now you, a comedian, have become an euthanasia advocate. What’s your next trick? Filming a man jumping off a bridge?

Dr Tom Mortier lectures in chemistry at Leuven University College, in Belgium.

Germany's Jewish community opposes assisted suicide, while the nation debates the issue.

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The German Bundestag is scheduled to debate four assisted suicide proposals on Friday November 6. The Handelsblatt Global Edition reported, in a mostly pro-euthanasia article, that the four proposals range from complete liberalization to completely protecting people from euthanasia and assisted suicide. According to the article:

It’s encouraging how openly parliament is discussing the subject. Four motions will be on the agenda on November 6, when the Bundestag votes on how assisted suicide will be handled in the future. Proposals range from drastic penalties for anyone who assists in a suicide to complete liberalization of euthanasia, even for those who are not sick.

Germany's Health Minister, for instance, has stated that he supports a ban on the business of assisted suicide, such as occurs at the suicide clinics in Switzerland.

On Monday, Germany's Jewish community stated their opposition to the legalization of assisted suicide. According to the Jewish Times:

The Central Council of Jews in Germany said Monday that there must be no liberalization of assisted suicide in the country.

Josef Schuster

Central Council President Josef Schuster, a physician and member of the Central Ethics Committee of the German Medical Association, said:

“Seriously ill and elderly people should not be pushed to commit suicide,” 

“Assisted suicide must not become a regular service provided by doctors, an alternative to care for the dying,”

Schuster urged more support for hospice and palliative care.

In December 2014, the German Ethics Council rejected a change in the assisted suicide law. In September 2014, the memorial to the T-4 euthanasia program victims opened in Berlin.

The German Medical Association opposes euthanasia.

Further information:

• German ethics committee rejects the legalisation of assisted suicide.
• German Bundestag opposes assisted suicide groups.
• Memorial to the T-4 euthanasia program opens in Berlin.
• German Medical Association opposes euthanasia.
• The victims of Nazi euthanasia have been forgotten.

A disabled man's plea to Canada's new Prime Minister about Assisted Suicide.

This letter was written by Mark Pickup and published on his blog on October 31, 2015

The Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau
Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
OTTAWA, Ontario K1A 0A6

Dear Prime Minister:

Supreme Court ruling for assisted suicide

Mark Pickup

I am writing to plead with you to invoke the notwithstanding clause of  the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms and override the monstrous Supreme Court decision to strike down the nation’s law against assisted suicide. It will be consistent with your previous support for a National Suicide Prevention Strategy that received unanimous support of Parliament in October of 2012. The high court’s odious decision threatens to set back advances in disability inclusion forty years that I and others have fought hard to gain.

I have been incurably ill with aggressive multiple sclerosis (MS) for more than thirty years. Its degenerative nature gradually stripped me of physical function from being healthy and athletic to living in an electric wheelchair. If assisted suicide had been available during the mid-1980s I might have opted for it at a low point. I’m so glad I did not seek out a Jack Kevorkian. I never would have known my grandchildren. You see, Prime Minister, quality of life changes. What gave my life quality in 1984 is not what gives my life quality in 2015. Physical function is not so important to me anymore; it is love that brings quality to my life now: To love and be loved. 

You did the right thing in 2012 by supporting a national suicide prevention strategy. Do the right thing again and invoke the notwithstanding clause, even though it will be unpopular. A national suicide prevention strategy must be for all Canadians, not just the healthy. Support increased emphasis on palliative medicine in medical schools and nursing programs across the country.

Thank you for reading and considering my letter. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

I am, Sir,
Yours very truly,
Mark Davis Pickup

Stephen Drake: Don't buy into aid in dying.

This article was published by the Rochester NY Democrat and Chronicle on October 30, 2015 and republished on the Not Dead Yet website on October 31.

Stephen Drake

By Stephen Drake - Guest Essayist.

Stephen Drake is the research analyst for Not Dead Yet.

Recently, you’re hearing and reading a lot about “aid in dying” — a relatively new term that is increasingly used in place of “assisted suicide.” You’re also being told that the issues surrounding assisted suicide are simple, with the only objections coming from far-right Christian conservatives.

There are many nonreligious progressives who have actively opposed legalization of assisted suicide for many years. The organization I work for is a secular disability rights group formed 19 years ago to oppose legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Thirteen other national disability rights groups also oppose legalization – many of them for over a decade.

Legalized assisted suicide sets up a discriminatory policy toward suicide based on the health status of the person who wants to commit suicide. Young, healthy, nondisabled people’s suicides are treated as preventable tragedies, while old, ill and disabled people are seen as expressing autonomy and deserving assistance to make sure our suicides don’t fail.

Seen from our perspective, that doesn’t smack of compassion or respect. Is it a coincidence that assisted suicide is gaining ground just as more of us are aging while we face growing cuts in the health care and social safety nets on both state and federal levels? Derek Humphry — often called the father of the assisted suicide movement — wrote in a book he co-authored in 2000 about the Unspoken Argument that it would be economics more than anything else that would drive assisted suicide to the plateau of acceptance.

Advocates for assisted suicide also claim that legalization will bring an underground practice into the light. That’s bogus. First of all, the state reported “data” we get from Oregon comes from the doctors who prescribe lethal drugs and the pharmacies that dispense them, with no state verification or investigation, even when problem cases come to light in the mainstream press. While advocates for assisted suicide generally support statutes that have the appearance of accountability, it’s no accident that two of the five assisted suicide bills proposed in New York State have no reporting requirements at all.

As for the “aid in dying,” this term was the result of extensive testing with focus groups, according to assisted suicide advocates giving a presentation at a conference several years ago.

“Aid in dying” is a marketing term to draw more support than the term “assisted suicide.” But don’t buy it.

Stephen Drake is research analyst for the disability rights group, Not Dead Yet.

Horrible UK End-of-Life Care Pushes Assisted Suicide.

This article was published on Wesley Smith's blog on October 29, 2015.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

A Netherlander death doctor once notoriously said he had little need for palliative care because he had euthanasia.

Negligence and lousy medicine can also push desperate people into assisted suicide rather than face awful conditions. That is apparently what is happening in the UK, as horrible end-of-life care pushes people to accept assisted suicide over abandonment and being allowed to die in pain. From the Telegraph story:

“Shocking” standards of end-of-life care in the NHS are fueling support for the legalisation of assisted dying, the chairman of an inquiry by MPs into palliative care in the UK has warned. 

Bernard Jenkin chairman of the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee said a fear of “finishing up on some hospital trolley, dying in some forgotten corner” was helping drive support among the public for a change in the law. 

The committee is calling for an urgent overhaul of training and the working culture in hospitals to address “systemic” failings in caring for people in the final days and hours of their lives.

This is a lesson of the dangers of the growing “quality of life” ethic in medicine and centralized, bureaucratic control over the delivery of health care, coming our way with Obamacare.

But assisted suicide is not the solution. It is, instead, a surrender that will make such negligent and indifferent care more difficult to remedy.

But boy, what a vote of no confidence that many Brits suicide as preferable to receiving end-of-life care in the NHS.

Barrie: The Memoirs of Dr. L.L. deVeber

Dr L.L. (Barrie) deVeber, the founding President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC). 

The newly published book - Barrie: The Memoirs of Dr. L.L. deVeber, is the story of the life of a man who was a pediatric oncologist, a hematologist, a researcher, an innovator, a leader, and a founder of many organizations.

Dr deVeber is historically known for his work in the development of the serum for treating Rh factor in pregnancies. Countless children survived thanks to this research by Dr. deVeber. 

Dr deVeber developed the first pediatric palliative care guidelines, that were developed while he was treating children who were dying from cancer in London Ontario. 

He authored and co-authored many research papers that remain important today.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is selling the book: Barrie for $25  (includes postage). Bulk prices and orders are available upon request.

Books can be ordered by calling the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348 or email: info@epcc.ca or by purchasing by paypal (link). (please state Barrie in paypal purchase)

The editor states in the Forward of Barrie: The Memoirs of Dr. L.L. deVeber:

Dr. L.L. deVeber M.D., F.R.C.P. (C)
• Professor Emeritas Pediatrics and Oncology, University of Western Ontario
• Former Director Pediatric Oncology Children's Hospital of Western Ontario 

Dr. L.L. "Barrie" deVeber is internationally recognized as a pioneer in pediatric palliative care. 

His innovative work with children with cancer, pregnant woman and the Rh factor, and hemophilia patients, has affected the lives of many. His medical career has taken him around the globe, from Canada to England to the USA, to Saudi Arabia to Africa. 

Dr. deVeber is a founding member of various organizations including Camp Trillium, the Sunshine Foundation, the Montessori School of London ON, the Ronald McDonald House in London ON and the London and Area Right to Life. He is the founding President of the deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. 

Barrie & Iola deVeber (2012)

Dr. deVeber spent a career challenging the status quo. He has made countless presentations to government and local communities on the importance of respecting all human life. 

Dr. deVeber is a man who has truly lived: his caring and compassion has touched the lives of thousands of people and his Irish charm has made him a friend of many. 

His story is worth reading.      S.M.S

The book is dedicated to Iola his wife of 61 years who passed away on June 19, 2015.

Montreal Euthanasia Symposium: Theory and Reality about Euthanasia

Media Release - October 30, 2015

The Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia, the Living with Dignity network and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) are coming together for a one day conference on Saturday October 31, 2015 at the Best Western Ville Marie hotel in Montréal, to discuss our common concerns and directions.

The Quebec euthanasia experiment is scheduled to begin on December 10. The vast majorityof physicians around the world have always rejected euthanasia, above all because it is a public safety hazard: it can drive people to throw away years of their lives and provide caregivers and heirs with enormous power. Although it gives an illusion of control, the option of euthanasia will undoubtedly erode medical diligence and creativity in the medical care of people both chronically disabled and acutely disabled by illness.  

Most patients fear suffering at the end of life. This has always been the case. But we must find a less dangerous option than the constant availability of “death on demand” to address these fears. In extreme cases, i.e. for the small minority of patients for whom other options are not completely effective, palliative sedation can answer all symptom control problems.

Quebec has the only law in the world which attempts to coerce doctors to refer patients for euthanasia. Such pointless authoritarianism, of which we already had a taste in September, is a dangerous precedent which must be formally rejected.   

From a logistical point of view patients do not need help from their treating physician to access euthanasia: the government could easily set up a system of self-referral to voluntarily licensed doctors who are willing to practice euthanasia. This would avoid trampling on the professional judgment and conscience of the rest of the medical profession. 

We reject the concept that euthanasia is any kind of health care. We reject bullying physicians into referring their patients for death. And we reject the concept that intentional death is a solution to human distress.

Dr Catherine Ferrier – President, Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia (514) 623-5737

Dr Will Johnston – Chair, EPC - BC (604) 220-2042

Dr Margaret Cottle – Vice President, EPC (604) 222-0288

Dr Marc Beauchamp – President, Living with Dignity Network.

Alex Schadenberg - Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (519) 851-1434

Symposium de Montréal : la théorie et la réalité sur l’euthanasie

Communiqué de presse 30 octobre 2015

Le Collectif  des médecins contre l'euthanasie, le réseau citoyen Vivre dans la dignité et la Euthanasia Prevention Coalition sont réunis pour une conférence ce samedi 31 octobre 2015 à l'hôtel Best Western Ville Marie pour discuter de nos préoccupations et de nos orientations communes.

Le 10 décembre marquera le début de l’expérimentation de l'euthanasie au Québec. Jusqu’à maintenant, la vaste majorité des médecins à travers le monde rejette l'euthanasie, entre autres parce qu’elle représente un danger pour la sécurité publique: elle peut pousser des gens à renoncer à des années de leur vie et donne un pouvoir immense au personnel soignant et aux héritiers. L’option euthanasie procurera certes une illusion de contrôle, mais il ne fait aucun doute qu’elle érodera la diligence et la créativité dans les soins médicaux, tant pour les personnes avec un handicap chronique que pour les personnes gravement affligées par la maladie.

La plupart des patients craignent de souffrir à la fin de leurs jours. Il en a toujours été ainsi. Mais nous devons trouver une solution moins dangereuse que la disponibilité constante de la « mort sur demande » pour répondre à ces craintes. Dans les cas extrêmes, c’est-à-dire pour la petite minorité de patients pour qui les autres options ne sont pas totalement efficaces, la sédation palliative peut répondre à tous les problèmes de contrôle des symptômes.

Le Québec a la seule loi au monde qui veut contraindre les médecins traitants à référer les patients pour obtenir l'euthanasie. Un tel autoritarisme inutile, manifesté publiquement en septembre dernier, constitue un dangereux précédent qui devrait être formellement rejeté.

D’un point de vue logistique, un patient n'a aucunement besoin de l’intervention de son médecin traitant pour avoir accès à l'euthanasie. Le gouvernement pourrait facilement mettre en place un système dans lequel le patient aurait accès par lui-même à des médecins certifiés et volontaires qui accepteraient de pratiquer des euthanasies. De cette façon, on ne foulerait pas aux pieds le jugement professionnel et la conscience des autres membres de la profession médicale.

Nous rejetons le concept que l'euthanasie constitue un quelconque soin de santé. Nous rejetons l'intimidation des médecins pour les forcer à référer leurs patients vers la mort. Et nous rejetons l'idée que la mort provoquée soit une solution à la détresse humaine.

Dr Catherine Ferrier - Le Collectif  des médecins contre l'euthanasie, (514) 623-5737

Dr Will Johnston - L'euthanasie Prevention Coalition - BC

Dr Margaret Cottle - L'euthanasie Prevention Coalition

Dr Marc Beauchamp - Vivre dans la dignité 

Alex Schadenberg

Directeur exécutif

L'euthanasie Prevention Coalition

(519) 851-1434

Belgian Euthanasia Commission refers case for judiciary review.

This article was published by HOPE Australia on October 29, 2015.

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell, the director of HOPE Australia.

De Standaard newspaper is reporting today that, for the very first time since its inception in October 2002, the Belgian Euthanasia Commission has referred a reported euthanasia case to the judiciary for review.

The case in question is well known as it was recorded by the Australian SBS TV Network reporter, Brett Mason, in a Dateline documentary aired in Australia in September. As Mason reported:

“Simona de Moor is a physically healthy 85-year-old. She lives in a care home in Antwerp, but is still active and on no medication. 

However, she’s been unable to accept the death of her daughter Vivian from a heart attack three months earlier, and sees no reason to go on.”

De Standaard reports:

"The doctor in question has not complied with the conditions imposed by the law, ruled the 16 members on Tuesday unanimously. Palliative physician and co-chair of the Committee Wim Distelmans confirmed the news to the newspaper. "If there is any doubt about the terms, we must continue to court." 

The doctor in question is Marc Van Hoey, also chairman of the association "Right to die with dignity." He applied to euthanasia on Simona De Moor, a 85-year-old woman who died on June 22 of this year in Antwerp."

Van Hoey is no stranger to the controversies associated with the application of Belgium's euthansia laws. in 2013, in an interview for Canada's National Post newspaper, he was candid in his assessment of the law and his approach to it:

"Marc Van Hoey, a physician who performs euthanasia and is head of the Flemish death-with-dignity association, said there has been a shift toward euthanasia of what he called the high elderly. “Recently I went to see a lady of 95 years old, sitting in a nursing home all by herself. All her friends and family had died. The only people she had good contact with were the nursing team. She said every evening she goes to bed, she hopes, ‘Don’t let me wake up any more,’ ” he said. He told her she was a candidate for euthanasia. 

“Why do I say that? Because maybe if you say to that kind of person, ‘We are not going to give you euthanasia,’ they open the window on the fourth floor and jump down. And that’s traumatic for everyone.” 

"Dr. Van Hoey is remarkably frank about how flexible the euthanasia law is. It requires a written request for euthanasia from a patient, but it can be written on a napkin, he said. The control commission has even approved euthanasia when there was no written request, taking the doctor’s word that an oral request had been made. 

"Assisted suicide — when the doctor prescribes a patient lethal medication instead of administering it himself – is not legal in Belgium. But Dr. Van Hoey said he has aided the suicides of two of his patients, including one a few years ago who had been refused euthanasia. The 56-year-old businessman was half-paralyzed after a stroke and did not want to live, but he had trouble finding a psychiatrist who would approve euthanasia. Dr. Van Hoey said today he would have gone ahead and performed the euthanasia without the approval of a psychiatrist instead of surreptitiously prescribing lethal drugs. He noted that Belgian law only says a third doctor must be “consulted” if death is not imminent. “It is not said [the doctors] have to agree,” he said."

Van Hoey is also the head of the Flemish 'right to die' association.

De Standaard says that the referral of this case to Justice was a unanimous decision of the 16 member evaluation commission on the basis that, in their conclusion, Simona de Moor was euthanased because she was 'tired of life', a category not yet allowed under the current interpretation of the Belgian law. But that is not necessarily the case.

Jacqueline Herremans, president of Belgium's francophone death-with-dignity association and a member of the control commission told the National Post in the same article (above): “Being tired of life is not an acceptable diagnosis... But if, for example, someone is afflicted with osteoarthritis, can no longer leave the rest home where she lives, is losing her eyesight, losing her hearing, in that case you have the necessary information about the person’s medical condition.” Having lost a spouse can also be a factor. “It sometimes enters into the consideration of suffering,” she said."

Is there a valid distinction to be made here between grief at the loss of a spouse and the loss of a child? It would seem so.

But there's more to it than that. Official records and studies based on death certificates in both Belgium and Holland show that not all euthanasia deaths are reported as the law demands. In a De Standaard interview in January 2014, Dr Marc Cosyns frankly admitted, in the presence of the co-chair of the euthanasia commission, Dr Wim Distelmans, that he has never reported his own cases, as required by law. Distelman's replies" “But Marc...you cannot ignore the criminal law.” And yet nothing happens.

Perhaps Dr van Hoey is guilty of two mistakes: firstly, allowing the filming of de Moor's death and, secondly, making out the official report.

Distelmans and the commission could perhaps be accused of a selective application of the law; apply an intepretation of qualification but do nothing about known cases that are not reported. The message here to Belgian doctors is clear: if you don't want any trouble, don't fill in the paperwork. This only serves to further undermine the flimsy pretence that the commission and the law are effective tools in protecting Belgian citizens.

The commission may well be making an example of Dr van Hoey for good reason, but they may just as easily be reacting to the negative sentiment arising out of the SBS Documentary and the continuing international scrutiny.

One swallow does not a summer make.

see also: SBS Dateline special report: Allow me to die

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) and The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) Declaration on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.

Link to the Declaration on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.

Assisted suicide and euthanasia raise profound social, moral, legal, theological and philosophical questions -- questions that go to the very core of our understanding of who we are, the meaning of life, and the duty of care we owe to each other. The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision has brought this issue to the forefront of public discussion and compels each of us as Canadians to reflect upon our personal and societal response to those who need our compassion and care. 

We, the undersigned, each from the basis of our sacred teachings and enduring traditions, affirm the sanctity of all human life, and the equal and inviolable dignity of every human being. This is an affirmation shared by societies and cultures around the world and throughout history. Human dignity is not exclusively a religious belief, although for us it has a significant religious meaning. Furthermore, we affirm that reverence for human life is the basis and reason for our compassion, responsibility and commitment in caring for all humans, our brothers and sisters, when they are suffering and in pain.

The sanctity of human life is a foundational principle of Canadian society. It has both individual and communal import: it undergirds the recognition of the equal dignity of each individual regardless of their abilities or disabilities and shapes and guides our common life together, including our legal, health care and social welfare systems. It engenders the collective promotion of life and the protection of the vulnerable. 

While Canadian society continues to affirm the importance of human dignity, there is a worrisome tendency to define this subjectively and emotionally. For us, human dignity is most properly understood as the value of a person’s life before her or his Creator and within a social network of familial and societal relationships. We are convinced the only ways to help people live and die with dignity are: to ensure they are supported by love and care; to provide holistic care which includes pain control as well as psychological, spiritual and emotional support; and, to improve and increase resources in support of palliative and home care. 

On the basis of our respective traditions and beliefs, we insist that any action intended to end human life is morally and ethically wrong. Together, we are determined to work to alleviate human suffering in every form but never by intentionally eliminating those who suffer. 

The withholding or withdrawal of burdensome treatment must be distinguished from euthanasia and assisted suicide. The intention in such cases is not to cause death but to let it occur naturally. We understand that under certain circumstances it is morally and legally acceptable for someone to refuse or stop treatment. The refusal of medical treatment, including extraordinary measures, is very different from euthanasia or assisted suicide. Euthanasia is the deliberate killing of someone, with or without that person’s consent, ostensibly in order to eliminate suffering. Assisted suicide occurs when one person aids, counsels or encourages another person to commit suicide. There is a fundamental difference between killing a person and letting her or him die of natural causes. 

Euthanasia and assisted suicide treat the lives of disadvantaged, ill, disabled, or dying persons as less valuable than the lives of others. Such a message does not respect the equal dignity of our vulnerable brothers and sisters.