Charles Lewis: Resist falling prey to a system of legalized murder.

By Charlie Lewis

Most everyone has heard of the notion that if you put myriad monkeys in a room with typewriters, pens, paper and computers eventually one of our simian friends would produce a work akin to Hemingway, St. Augustine or Judith Krantz.

I think what they would end up with would be closer to Bill C-14, the Liberal government's bill on euthanasia and assisted suicide — or as I call it, killing of patients — released Thursday.

As Kelly McParland wrote in the National Post, the only beneficiaries will be lawyers who should be able to buy a beautiful cottage or two from the legal fees that will be generated by the confusion generated by this bill.

It raises so many questions you wonder whether adults wrote it or their young progeny during a “bring your kids to work” day. The bill is so unclear it leaves open critical questions: Who will be considered terminal? Will a physician have the right to exercise his or her conscience and refuse to refer a patient to someone who would kill him or her? Does it allow for non-medical personnel to administer the poison?

Try to figure this cryptic clue about who is eligible: 

“[N]atural death has become reasonably foreseeable (precise proximity to death is not required).”

No one can define what “reasonably foreseeable means” and nor could anyone of average intelligence or greater even begin to unravel the clause that “precise proximity to death is not required.”

The one good thing we can say about Bill C-14 is that it has upset activists on both sides of the debate. That would normally be good politics because it demonstrates independent thinking on the part of the government and a refusal to pander. But in this case the government does not deserve credit.

This bill is simply inept. It does not follow the odious recommendations of its own fact-finding committee and nor does it follow the Supreme Court of Canada decision of February 2015 which declared our ban on assisted suicide and euthanasia void.

For example, the court decision allowed for the killing of psychiatric patients and those with non-fatal chronic pain. The government follows none of this.

We who have fought against the killing of patients should be happy, right? We appear to have won some battles, right?

For the most part we are not happy at all.

Most of us have said for years that any bill will be a starting point for greater calamity. A conservative, restrictive bill would grow over time as citizens became more used to it, which was the case in Holland and Belgium. A few years ago the doctor who was the architect of Quebec's euthanasia law said the province's effort was just a beginning and over time the law would encompass more ailments and younger patients. It was awful to hear but at least honest.

Now we have been left with a mess. A good lawyer, Supreme Court decision in hand, will easily be able to challenge the "restrictions" in the new law and crush them like a bug.

For those of us fighting the killing of patients our job will be harder. My fear is that even anti-euthanasia audiences will start to think this bill is really not so bad and that the government seemed to have listened to our concerns.

That is delusional.

The bill is the way it is because of incompetence. It leaves a giant legal vacuum in which any "violation" of the bill will easily be contested because the language is so vague.

We are going to have at some point a law that will be much broader than what the government has proposed. It may take a few years but it will happen. In the meantime, many more Canadian will buy into the lie that Bill C-14 is a perfect compromise that is safe and responsible. 

By the time the law allows children, psychiatric patients and those who are simply tired of life to end their lives with state approval and assistance most Canadians will have been lulled into a false sense of safety and simply will not notice as the beast grows.

At least a clear bill would have made it easier to fight. It might have alarmed enough people who would have resisted falling prey to a system of legalized murder. 

Who would have thought this government would have been this sneaky?

Charlie Lewis writes a regular column for the Catholic Register and is a former reporter for the National Post

The federal government provides exemptions for murder, aiding suicide and administering poison

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Montreal, April 15, 2016

In the midst of one of the worst suicide crises in our country’s history, the federal government has tabled Bill C-14, which proposes to legalize both euthanasia and assisted suicide across Canada under the pseudonym “medical assistance in dying". The waltz of words continues, as we malign palliative care by presenting "medical assistance in dying" as the only alternative to an agonizingly painful death.

From the outset, the bill makes clear the gravity of what our society is about to accept: it amends the Criminal Code to "create exemptions from the offences of culpable homicide, of aiding suicide and of administering a noxious substance, in order to permit medical practitioners and nurse practitioners to provide medical assistance in dying and to permit pharmacists and other persons to assist in the process".

These people would not be criminally responsible if they practice euthanasia or helping a patient to commit suicide. Nor would the people helping the physician or nurse practitioner "if they do anything, at another person’s explicit request, for the purpose of aiding that other person to self-administer a substance that has been prescribed for that other person as part of the provision of medical assistance in dying". Therefore, every citizen will be able, without fear of prosecution, to help another person to commit suicide if his condition meets the criteria established by law: a parent, a friend, a brother, a sister, etc. 

Not surprisingly, there is no requirement that people who suffer be at the end of life to have access to assisted suicide. Only that “their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable (...) without a prognosis necessarily having been made as to the specific length of time that they have remaining". It seems to us that everyone’s death is reasonably foreseeable.

Moreover, the federal government casts a wide net in its list of lives that are not worth living, including people with a serious and incurable disease, condition or disability, those losing autonomy and those with persistent physical or psychological suffering "that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable." In drawing up a set of circumstances in which it is now acceptable to commit suicide with the help of a doctor and the complicity of the state, the federal government endorses the choice of death for a host of reasons... on the condition of being at least 18 years old.

We are already far from the idea that was sold to us when this debate began: from proposing death for a few exceptional cases, we’ve reached the point where it’s considered "health care" like any other. Access to euthanasia and assisted suicide is such a priority that the federal bill suggests that a person be allowed to shorten his time of reflection (fixed at 15 days) if natural death becomes imminent – which invalidates the argument of the Supreme Court of Canada who claimed that "medical assistance to die" would help prevent people from taking their life prematurely...

In short, after the smoke screen that was the scandalous report of the Special Joint Committee, Bill C-14 gives the false impression of being prudent and restrictive. But a further reading enables us to understand where we are heading: the government is already expecting a need for "further studies on requests by mature minors, advance requests and requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition" after the implementation of the law.

An even more permissive law won’t be long in coming. As soon as the population has swallowed this first poison pill.

Anyone who still respects the inherent and inalienable dignity of every human person and is concerned for the common good has one thing to do right now: call his or her MP to try to block this Bill unworthy of Canadian society.

For more information contact:
Catherine Ferrier, president
Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia
438.938.9410  info@collectifmedecins.org

Aubert Martin, Executive Director
Living with Dignity
438.931.1233  info@vivredignite.org

Canada's Euthanasia Bill provides a perfect cover for murder.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC)

Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying) was tabled today in the House of Commons.

Bill C-14 appears more restrictive in comparison to the radical recommendations from the government assisted dying committee. The bill does not extend euthanasia to mature minors, to people with dementia, or to people who seek death by lethal injection for psychological reasons alone. The bill appears to require the person to have a terminal condition and it appears to require a 15 day waiting period.

In reality Bill C-14 provides legal immunity to anyone, who kills another, while the bill fails to provide effective oversight of the law or conscience rights for healthcare professionals.

There are significant problems with the design of Bill C-14.

1. Bill C-14 does not provide effective oversight of the law. The bill requires approval for euthanasia or assisted suicide by two independent physicians or nurse practitioners, without requiring before the death oversight from an independent third-party (judge or committee). The bill permits the doctor or nurse practitioners that approve the act to also do the act and then also report the act. There is no effective oversight when the same person approves the injection, does the injection and then reports the injection.

2. Bill C-14 provides legal immunity to “any person” who directly participates in the act. Section 241(3) provides legal immunity to any person who does anything for the purpose of aiding a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner to provide a person with medical assistance in dying. Section 241(5) provides legal immunity to anyone who does anything, at another person’s explicit request, for the purpose of aiding that other person to self-administer a substance that has been prescribed for that other person as part of the provision of medical assistance in dying. These sections of the bill are very dangerous because they provide legal immunity to any person who is directly involved with killing another person.

It is unbelievable that legal immunity is provided to anyone. This bill provides the perfect cover for acts of murder.

3. The bill does not limit euthanasia and assisted suicide to people who are terminally ill. The bill defines terminal as: their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable, taking into account all of their medical circumstances, without a prognosis necessarily having been made as to the specific length of time that they have remaining.

What does it mean that natural death has become reasonably foreseeable? How will that be determined if a prognosis is not necessary? This section of the bill provides an illusion of compromise.

4. The “safeguards” are an illusion. The bill requires a medical or nurse practitioner to: be of the opinion that the person meets all of the criteria. To “be of the opinion” is a very low standard. It will be impossible to prove that the medical or nurse practitioner was not of the opinion that the person met all of the criteria.

The bill requires a medical or nurse practitioner to: be satisfied that the request was signed and dated by the person — or by another person under subsection (4). To “be satisfied” is a very low standard. 

Section 4 also enables any person to sign the request. It states anyone can sign the request so long as they are: at least 18 years of age and who understands the nature of the request.

Bill C-14 is a Trojan horse that falsely claims to provide clear and effective guidelines.

5. The bill does not provide conscience protection for medical or nurse practitioners. Medical professionals who consider killing patients as the antithesis to care are not given conscience protection in Bill C-14. Section 241.31 requires medical and nurse practitioners to be involved in the act by requiring them to send requests for euthanasia or assisted suicide to a “designated recipient” or the Minister of Health.

Conclusion: 

Bill C-14 does not provide effective oversight of the law, it is not a harm reduction model, nor does it provide safe spaces for people who are particularly opposed to being killed by lethal injection and it does not provide conscience protection for medical professionals who oppose killing patients. This bill provides the perfect cover for acts of murder by enabling “anyone” to directly participate in the act

This bill is particularly dangerous for Canadians in their time of need.

EPC is a national organization of citizens and groups who support caring measures and oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. EPC has more than 25,000 supporters.

Six Questions About Physician-Assisted Death from a Conscientious Objector

Dr Ewan C Goligher

This article was published in the National Post on April 14, 2016.

Ewan C. Goligher MD

Canadian policy makers have recently proposed to require all doctors to provide an effective referral for physician-assisted death (PAD) upon the patient’s request. Forcing doctors to knowingly send their patient to another doctor willing to cause the patient’s death will seriously compromise the moral integrity of conscientiously objecting doctors and risks undermining the quality of patient care. To understand the position of conscientiously objecting doctors, consider the following questions.

1. Should doctors provide physician-assisted death merely because it is legal?

Doctors should provide PAD only if it is both legal and ethical. The Supreme Court has ruled that PAD ought not to be legally prohibited, but it cannot define whether it is ethical for doctors to intentionally cause death. In their decision on the legality of PAD, the Supreme Court Justices stated that “nothing in this decision would compel physicians to provide assistance in dying.” The Justices recognize that we need not automatically accept that PAD is ethical in the wake of this sweeping change in law.

2. Must all doctors accept the assumptions underpinning the claim that physician-assisted death is good medical care?

Advocates for PAD contend that death should be used to treat suffering because for some patients, death is better than life. This assumes some notion of what it is like to be dead. Yet the medical profession has no idea what it is like to be dead. All beliefs about the afterlife (including the belief that there is no afterlife) are metaphysical (quasi-religious) beliefs which cannot be confirmed or refuted by scientific medical evidence. Thus PAD is innately experimental and its outcomes are hidden from us. Though there is always a measure of uncertainty in medicine, medical care must be based on evidence and observation and sound reasoning, and doctors should not be forced to practice medicine based on untestable quasi-religious assumptions.

The case for PAD also assumes that respect for the patient’s wishes, rather than respect for the patient as a whole, is the foundational value of medical ethics. Respect for the patient’s wishes is unquestionably part of respecting the patient, but valuing these wishes above the patient herself would prevent doctors from ever refusing any patient request, even if it would clearly harm her health. The long-accepted firm foundation for medical ethics (including the duty to respect the patient’s wishes) is the incalculable intrinsic objective worth of the patient. Intentionally causing death would require us to render valueless that which is of essential value: the patient.

In sum, given the tenuous assumptions underpinning the case for PAD, doctors need not accept that PAD is good medical care.

3. If physician-assisted death remained illegal, would doctors be legally liable for making an effective referral?

If a father were to request that his daughter undergo circumcision (i.e. genital mutilation), and I deliberately provided an effective referral to a willing physician, I would be complicit in an extremely grievous breach of medical ethics. This scenario is not ethically identical to PAD but it effectively illustrates the moral and ethical responsibility attached to an effective referral. This moral responsibility is recognized in law: doctors are legally liable for referring a patient for a procedure that is forbidden by law, even if requested by the patient (as was the case for PAD until now). Knowingly referring a patient to a physician willing to cause the patient’s death makes doctors complicit in that death. Therefore, if upon considered moral reflection we find that PAD is unethical, we ought not to provide referrals for PAD.

4. Does the Charter right of Freedom of Conscience apply to doctors?

Some argue that doctors cannot claim the Charter right of Freedom of Conscience because we willingly accept responsibilities and duties that limit our freedom when we commit to care for the patient. Accordingly, doctors are duty-bound to deliberately cause death upon the patient’s voluntary request. This argument is successful only if PAD is ethical: the commitment to care does not extend to providing unethical care. Doctors are duty-bound to ensure that their patient’s suffering is relieved by all effective means available. Whether this commitment entails a duty to cause death is a controversial moral question contingent upon certain philosophical assumptions. Those who insist upon a duty to refer for PAD impose their personal ethical beliefs and assumptions upon others. The freedom of individuals to decide this issue and to act in accordance with one’s deeply held moral beliefs is precisely what the Charter right of Freedom of Conscience protects.

5. How does respect for conscientious objection affect patient care?

Even given the assumption that PAD is ethical, robust respect for conscientious objection is still ultimately good for patients. Patients entrust themselves to their doctors, and doctors must be worthy of this trust. The doctor’s moral integrity—a commitment to acting in accordance with moral norms—is foundational to his/her trustworthiness. Suppressing conscientious objection prizes moral conformity over moral integrity and systematically teaches physicians to suppress their basic moral intuitions in favour of constantly evolving social conventions. It also teaches the profession to be less sympathetic of and tolerant toward patients’ diverse moral beliefs. Thus, robust respect for conscientious objection should be viewed as an important public good that upholds the quality of medical care.

6. Will respect for conscientious objection obstruct access to physician-assisted death?

Upholding respect for conscientious objection to PAD need not present a significant obstacle to obtaining PAD. Making referrals mandatory does not immediately guarantee access as PAD will not be routinely provided by any particular medical specialty and many in the medical community do not know physicians willing to accept such referrals. Conscientious objectors have proposed simple solutions allowing patients to refer themselves for PAD, and this may in fact be the most reliable means of facilitating access. Yet policy makers have disregarded such proposals to this point. Carefully considered policy frameworks for providing PAD can show robust respect for conscientious objection while enabling universal patient access.

Dr. Ewan Goligher practices intensive care medicine in Toronto. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any institutions with which he is affiliated. Visit www.canadiansforconscience.ca to learn more.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: the design of the euthanasia law will either discourage or enable abuse.

Media Release

April 14, 2016

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) opposes giving anyone, the power in law, to cause the death of another person. We oppose any form of euthanasia and assisted suicide. 

In all jurisdictions where assisted death is legal, the laws lack effective oversight stated Alex Schadenberg, EPC executive director. Even the need for consent from the patient may often be ignored.

A study concerning assisted deaths in Belgium published in the NEJM (March 2015) found that more than 1000 deaths were intentionally hastened without request in the Flanders region of Belgium in 2013. The same study determined that many assisted deaths were not reported.

EPC legal counsel, Hugh Scher, urges the government to ensure effective oversight of the law. 

Prior approval by the court or an expert panel is essential to any assisted suicide regime that Parliament introduces. It is the only way to ensure compliance with legislative criteria established to identify vulnerability and prevent abuse of the law before people are put to death.

EPC VP Amy Hasbrouck,  a lawyer and disability leader, works in coalition with many groups.

Effective oversight based on a court approved or expert panel is endorsed by multiple stakeholders across the country including from the disability community, the medical community and legal experts.

Dr. Will Johnston, EPC – BC Chair stated that Euthanasia is not a form of health care. 

Defining euthanasia as health care would mean that lethal injections become a form of medical treatment. Not only is this an Orwellian concept, but may leave Canadians without a safe space within the healthcare system.

Dr Johnston continued: 

Forcing doctors to participate in killing their patients is paternalistic. To require doctors to refer patients to a doctor who will lethally inject them undermines conscience rights and my oath that I will “Do No Harm.”

EPC urges the government to protect people at the most vulnerable time of life.

For more information contact:

Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director (London) 519-851-1434, info@epcc.ca

Hugh Scher, EPC Legal Counsel (Toronto) 416-816-6115, hugh@sdlaw.ca

Dr Will Johnston, Chair EPC – BC (Vancouver) 604-220-2042, willjohnston@shaw.ca

Amy Hasbrouck, EPC – VP (Montréal) 450-921-3057, tigrlily@gmail.com

Canadian government expected to table euthanasia legislation.

The Canadian government is expected to introduce euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation tomorrow.

This evening CTV news interviewed Alex Schadenberg, the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. (Link to the interview).

Alex Schadenberg

CTV news reported Schadenberg as saying:

“I’m concerned that (the government) is going to follow the similar model that exists in Belgium and the Netherlands where the whole system is designed by two doctors agreeing,” Alex Schadenberg, the executive director of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition told CTV News Channel. 

Schadenberg said he and others concerned about the upcoming legislation want to see a third party involved in the assisted dying process, either in the form of a committee of medical professionals or a judge’s ruling in each case. 

“We’re talking about life and death here,” he said. “So, when someone’s life is ended, we’d better be pretty sure that they were following at least a prescription and the law.”

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes legalizing euthanasia. Legalizing euthanasia will give doctors, the right in law, to lethally inject their patients. No one should ever be given the legal power to cause the death of another person.

Groups opposing euthanasia warn Canadian government.

On April 11, 2016; Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, and Aubert Martin executive director of Living with Dignity Québec, held a press conference in Ottawa to warn the federal government about abuse of the law before it introduces euthanasia legislation. QMI reported on the press conference by publishing an article by Guillaume St-Pierre.

Aubert Martin & Alex Schadenberg 

The Quebec organization, Living with Dignity, warned the federal government, which is preparing to introduce a bill on medical help to die, against possible abuses. 

"After only four months since the start of the law that legalized euthanasia in Quebec, we are already witnessing the first slip," said the CEO of the organization during a press briefing in Ottawa on Monday, Aubert Martin. 

In early March, the Collège des médecins du Québec (CMQ) had to issue an opinion in which he reminded members that attempted suicide is not a refusal of treatment. 

The warning served to rein in doctors who chose not to resuscitate patients who have tried to kill themselves by poisoning when they came to the emergency. 

This example demonstrates, according to Mr Martin, that the health system needs to "relieve, not kill." 

"From the beginning the play on words, calling medical assistance to die that is actually human euthanasia," he added. 

The Trudeau government is drafting future legislation governing medical help to die for people with severe and irreversible diseases. 

Parliament has until June 6 to pass the legislation giving effect to a judgment of the Supreme Court, which invalidated sections of the Criminal Code prohibiting euthanasia. 

However, the Quebec organization to live in dignity continues to oppose any form of supervision of what he still considers to be a "homicide". 

"We're talking about a law that will allow in certain circumstances, another person to kill or help to someone to kill oneself. Instead of promoting assisted suicide, the provincial and federal governments should work to improve palliative care," insisted Mr. Martin.

We expect that the euthanasia legislation will be introduced next week.

John Kelly: Assisted Suicide Laws and Bills are “Riddled with Falsehoods”

This article was published by Not Dead Yet on April 7, 2016.

John Kelly from Not Dead Yet.

On March 29, Not Dead Yet New England Regional Coordinator and Second Thoughts Massachusetts Director John Kelly testified against New Hampshire Bill SB426, which would establish an “end-of-life choices study commission.” Using the euphemisms of proponents like Compassion & Choices against the bill, John lists the ways in which the bill is “riddled with falsehoods.”

Excellent opposition testimony was also delivered by doctors Paul Saba and Richard Johnson, and former New Hampshire legislator Nancy Elliott. Below are excerpts from John’s testimony:

Chairman Rowe, Vice-Chairman Hagan, Members of the Committee:

. . . Please reject SB426 because it is riddled with falsehoods. From the words of the commission’s title to its enumerated duties, it’s clear that legalization proponents drafted the bill. It is a stalking horse for the legalization of assisted suicide.

The first falsehood is the phrase “end-of-life.” The committee should know that in current practice, the “end-of-life” is the six-month period following a physician’s terminal diagnosis. Yet of the millions of misdiagnoses every year, many are terminal misdiagnoses. We know this because of the thousands of people who “graduate” from hospice each year. …

Assisted suicide laws turn the best outcome under hospice – proving you weren’t terminal after all – into the worst possible end for people who might live months, years, or decades longer, but are instead persuaded (or coerced) under threat of agonizing death to commit suicide.

There are so many examples of people outliving terminal prognoses, from Ted Kennedy living a year longer than predicted to John Norton of Florence, Mass., who testified before the state legislature that when he was diagnosed with ALS, he would have definitely used assisted suicide were it available. Luckily for John, his family, and everyone who has come to know him, assisted suicide wasn’t state policy, his disease process stopped, and – 60 years later! – he’s urging people to reject these bills. . . .

The second falsehood is illusion of “choices,” the other word in the title of the proposed commission. When people cannot get accurate knowledge about their condition, we cannot speak of “choices.” We also cannot speak of “choices” –

• When one out of every 10 people over the age of 60 in New Hampshire is estimated to be abused every year, almost always by adult children and caregivers.
• When someone in line to inherit your estate can help sign you up, pick up the prescription, and then take action against you with no questions asked.
• When depressed people with a serious illness who mistakenly think that people will be better off without them get told that “feeling like a burden” is a rational reason to kill yourself.
• When there is no funded homecare, so families worried about the inheritance feel pressure to “choose” assisted suicide. . . .

I was once able-bodied and had an accident, and since then I’ve received many “better dead than disabled” messages, right to my face and through popular culture. My own father wished that I died in the accident. . . .

The third falsehood in this bill is the phrase “aid in dying,” one of Compassion & Choices’ favorite euphemisms for assisted suicide (“Death with Dignity” is the other). It’s not clear exactly what “aid” means. …

“Dying” reflects the fiercely maintained belief of proponents that when people are “reasonably expected” to die within six months, they are in the process of actively dying. …The problem is that this is so often and so clearly untrue. …

[Fourth], according to proponents, … there has never been a case of abuse out in Oregon – that’s right, the first state-run program ever without a case of abuse. The only reason that no abuse is discovered is because the reports are designed that way. The only abuses we know of are ones that somehow make it to the media.

For example, Wendy Melcher died after being given massive doses of barbiturate suppositories by two nurses, one of whom was having an affair with Wendy’s partner. The nurses claimed that Melcher had requested assisted suicide, but there was no doctor’s prescription, Wendy did not self-administer, and the nurses never reported her death to the Oregon Department of Health as an assisted suicide.

Yet instead of referring the nurses to authorities for criminal charges, the state nursing board secretly suspended one nurse’s license for 30 days and placed the other on two years “probation.” It took a reporter’s phone call years later to inform Melcher’s devastated family that she had been killed. It seems that the very existence of the assisted suicide law turned evidence of a serious crime into an excusable mistake. The Portland Tribune editorialized, 

“If nurses — or anyone else — are willing to go outside the law, then all the protections built into the Death With Dignity Act are for naught.”

The fifth falsehood is that “aid in dying” is not assisted suicide. …

Encouraging assisted suicide for some will encourage suicide for all. Suicide contagion is real. According to the Centers for Disease Control, Oregon’s already high suicide rate has increased much more than the national average; from 1999 until 2010, the rate of increase for people age 35-64 was 49% in Oregon versus 28% nationally. …

The sixth falsehood is that assisted suicide is all about pain and suffering. But the five leading reasons reported by prescribing doctors solely deal with psychosocial distress about disability. First is distress about dependence on other people (“losing autonomy” 92%), second is distress over lost abilities (“less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable” 89%), followed by feelings of shame and perceived/actual loss of social status (“loss of dignity” 79%), distress about needing help with incontinence (“losing control of bodily functions” 50%), and believing that suicide would leave loved ones better off (“burden on family, friends/caregivers” 40%).

Another falsehood is that “choice” belongs only to the individual. It’s a fantasy that other people only want what the individual wants, and completely support whatever the person chooses.

… Here is an example of a man told he was a burden. Oregonian Kathryn Judson wrote of bringing her seriously ill husband to the doctor.

I collapsed in a half-exhausted heap in a chair once I got him into the doctor’s office, relieved that we were going to get badly needed help (or so I thought). To my surprise and horror, during the exam I overheard the doctor giving my husband a sales pitch for assisted suicide. "Think of what it will spare your wife, we need to think of her," he said, as a clincher….

The lives of non-“terminal” disabled people share many traits with people requesting assisted suicide, but we reject as bizarre and dangerous the notion that personal dignity is somehow lost through reliance on others, or because we are not continent every hour of every day. That’s why for 40 years the disability rights movement has insisted on funded programs to provide necessary personal care attendant (PCA) services for all disabled people, including people disabled by their serious illness.

Assisted suicide laws set up a two-tier system, under which some people get suicide prevention services while others get suicide assistance. The difference between the two groups would be based on value judgments about so-called “quality of life.” Many of us already get told, straight to our face and through medical hostility, that we might be better off dead. Legalized assisted suicide makes that prejudice official policy.

That’s why every leading national disability rights group that has taken a position on assisted suicide has come out against it.

There is no way to come up with a better bill through the “thoughtful and deliberative” process envisioned by sponsor Senator Dan Feltes.

This study commission would be well replaced by a commission that would investigate how best to “help older people in New Hampshire live well.”

…Reject SB426 because it’s dishonest and dangerous. Thank you.

To read John’s entire testimony, go here.

CARP assisted dying poll results may be skewed.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) may have skewed the results of their assisted dying poll. 

As a CARP member, I was sent a link to the "assisted dying" poll on March 3. Even though CARP claimed that it was a "members poll", the link to the poll could be accessed by anyone. After answering the poll questions I was shocked by the radically pro-euthanasia results.

Late that evening, I checked the poll results and noticed that there were already more than 5000 responses with the results remaining unbelievably one-sided.

Susan Eng

On January 27, Moses Znaimer, the President & CEO of CARP, fired Susan Eng, the CARP executive VP, based on her neutral stand on assisted dying and Znaimer replaced Eng with Wanda Morris, the CEO of Dying With Dignity, a euthanasia lobby group.

Considering the recent official poll results as compared to the Nanos poll and the Angus Reid Institute Survey, my assertion seems likely.

According to the CARP poll 80% stated that publicly funded health care institutions, including hospices and long-term care homes should participate in assisted dying. The Angus Reid Institute Survey found that 68% oppose forcing religiously affiliated hospitals to participate and 62% oppose forcing nursing homes to participate.

According to the CARP poll 85% stated that waiting periods should be flexible, while the Angus Reid Institute survey found that 88% support waiting periods.

According to the CARP poll 87% stated that a doctor must refer a patient for an assisted death, while the Nanos poll found that 75% support doctors having the right to opt-out from participating in assisted death.

Since the CARP poll could be done by anyone (even though it claimed to be a members survey) and the Angus Reid survey and the Nanos poll were scientifically done based on representative samples, it seems likely that the CARP poll was intentionally skewed.

Hugh Scher: Letter to Members of Parliament and Senators

From: Hugh Scher, Scher Law Professional Corporation (Toronto, Ottawa)

Hugh Scher

To: Member of Parliament

House of Commons, Ottawa ON K1A 0A6

Dear Honourable Member:

Re: Response to Joint Committee Report on New Assisted Suicide Law

I am a constitutional lawyer and authority on human rights and the rights of people with disabilities in Canada, particularly in respect of end of life issues. I have advocated on these issues for the past 25 years.

I have served as counsel or been consulted on virtually every end of life case in Canada over the past 15 years. Despite this, the joint committee investigating euthanasia and assisted suicide refused to hear my testimony.

My review of the joint Parliamentary Committee report highlights the following major concerns:

1. The Committee appears to unquestionably endorse a Benelux style regime of euthanasia, which has proven to be the most abused system of end of life practices in the world;

2. Even the Supreme Court of Canada recognizes that 32% of cases of euthanasia in Belgium were carried out without request and without consent, despite a legal requirement for these elements. In 47% of those cases, the doctors refused to report the matter to the overseeing body, despite a legal requirement to do so. Despite these clear breaches of the legal requirements of the Belgian law, not one Belgian doctor was prosecuted;

3. The joint Committee report suggests the broadest possible euthanasia regime in the world without any meaningful safeguards or effective oversight;

4. The joint Committee report and recommendations would extend access to euthanasia to children which is clearly contrary to the recommendations of the Supreme Court of Canada;

5. The joint Committee report would extend access to euthanasia to those acting based upon an advance directive and without the requirement for consent at the time of the act. This also contradicts the recommendations of the Supreme Court of Canada;

6. The joint Committee report further supports granting access to euthanasia to people with psychiatric conditions which fundamentally undermines both suicide prevention measures as well as requirements and safeguards for voluntariness, capacity and consent in end of life practices;

7. The joint Committee report explicitly rejects the means of effective oversight that have been implemented by the Supreme Court of Canada during the period of extended time to allow Parliament to respond to the Carter decision. In particular, the Supreme Court of Canada has implemented a regime of judicial oversight which requires that court applications be brought to ensure compliance with the legal requirements established by the Supreme Court. A similar approach to effective oversight was recommended by the Federal External Expert Panel charged to consult and advise the government on legislative implementation of the Carter decision;

8. Judicial or Tribunal oversight to ensure compliance with legislated requirements and to identify vulnerability before the fact is an essential requirement for effective oversight in respect of any regime of assisted suicide;

9. The joint Committee does not limit acts of euthanasia to those who are terminally ill, as in Quebec, Oregon and Washington State, but rather extends them to the broadest group of people ever permitted to access a state-funded regime of euthanasia in the world;

10. The joint Committee report says nothing about the fraud and lack of transparency on which the Benelux and present Quebec regimes are based by allowing doctors to falsify death certificates and indicate that the cause of death is not the intentional killing of a patient by a doctor, but rather the underlying illness. Such a measure makes it impossible to appropriately monitor and enforce compliance with legislative requirements, to identify vulnerability and prevent abuse. It also makes it impossible to accurately monitor these practices going forward and will inevitably lead to skewed data;

11. The joint Committee report extends those charged to engage in euthanasia to doctors, nurses, and registered practical nurses. Such an approach is broader than any other jurisdiction in the world and is a recipe for abuse and for incoherence. It renders it impossible to accurately monitor and track these practices to ensure compliance, oversight, to prevent abuse, and to enforce and punish breaches of legislative requirements, including for required consent;

12. The requirement of judicial or tribunal oversight and of vulnerability assessment and identification before the fact by way of prior review are an essential requirement of any regime of assisted suicide and must be implemented by Parliament in the event that there is to be any prospect of safe implementation of an assisted suicide regime. Failure to implement such measures will leave vulnerable Canadians at significant risk without any means of enforcement or protection from abuse;

13. The joint Committee report fails to properly recognize the conscience rights of health care practitioners and to protect those rights from being trampled under the guise of access;

14. The joint Committee report improperly and unwisely cedes Constitutional and practical authority over implementation of an assisted suicide regime to the Provinces and to doctors writ large. Such an approach belies the notion of national safeguards, effective legal oversight, and fails to ensure the level of knowledge, training and experience for those who are charged to carry out assisted suicide measures. The most appropriate approach would be to designate a specific federal employee who would be specially trained and empowered to carry out such acts of assisted suicide. This is something that should not be left simply to doctors and nurses. It should remain the responsibility of the Federal State. To do otherwise, unwisely and unnecessarily undermines the fiduciary nature of the doctor-patient relationship;

15. The joint Committee report would implement the widest ranging and most dangerous regime of euthanasia in the world, completely lacking in proper and appropriate safeguards or effective oversight.

The Supreme Court of Canada only agreed to strike down the criminal prohibitions against assisted suicide based on the belief that the Federal Parliament would introduce a carefully tailored and rigorously monitored and enforced regime of assisted suicide that would protect Canadians from the risks of abuse that have occurred in other jurisdictions, particularly in the Benelux states of Holland and Belgium. The recommendations of the joint Committee do exactly the opposite. They are completely lacking in proper safeguards or effective oversight and represent a recipe for abuse and for incremental expansion over the course of time in ways not yet contemplated and that would seek to undermine effective means of oversight and proper safeguards embraced by the Supreme Court.

To the extent that assisted suicide is to be implemented in Canada, regard should be had to the regime in Oregon and Washington State which are far more limited. The regime should be subject to more specific requirements for a witness at the time of death in order to ensure effective oversight and prevent abuse.

I respectfully request that you consider the above concerns and recommendations for more effective measures to give effect to the Carter decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. In that regard, I do refer you to the vulnerable person standard at the link set out here which provides for a series of safeguards and oversight measures that should form the basis for any law intended to give effect to the decision in Carter with respect to any assisted suicide regime in Canada.

Read the Vulnerable Persons Standard.

I have had the opportunity in past to address members of the Liberal, Conservative and NDP caucuses on these issues. Should members wish to speak further with me, I am pleased to make myself available to provide what advice and insight that I can with respect to this topic that I have studied and litigated over the past 25 years.

Yours truly,

Hugh R. Scher

Scher Law Professional Corporation

Cc. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould

Nanos poll: Doctors should be able to opt-out of assisted dying - majority oppose assisted dying for minors and for psychiatric reasons.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In the past few weeks, three professionals polls have been done on Canadian views on euthanasia and assisted suicide, referred to as "assisted dying."

The recent Nanos poll of 1000 Canadians that was done March 31 - April 4, 2016 was commissioned by the Globe and Mail. The Nanos media release stated that the poll found:

Canadians believe doctors should be able to opt-out of offering assisted dying - majority oppose or somewhat oppose assisted dying for minors 

• The majority of Canadians think that doctors should be able to opt-out of providing access to assisted dying against the will of their patients. Most Canadians do not think people under the age of 16 and 17 years should be able to access assisted dying and a marginal majority think that those with mental illness or psychiatric conditions should have access.

• Ability of doctors to opt-out - Three-fourths (75%) of Canadians believe doctors should be able to opt-out of offering assisted dying against the will of their patients (50% agree; 25% somewhat agree). Twenty-one percent say they would disagree or somewhat disagree with the same thing (11% disagree; 10% somewhat disagree). Four percent of Canadians are unsure.

• Assisted dying and minors - Six in ten Canadians (60%) say that they would disagree or somewhat disagree (16% somewhat disagree; 43% disagree), that minors who are 16 and 17 years of age should be able to access assisted dying, while thirty-seven percent of Canadians either agree (13%) or somewhat agree (24%). Five percent are unsure.

• Assisted dying and mental illness - Half of Canadians (52%) would either somewhat disagree (18%) with letting people with mental illness or psychiatric conditions access assisted dying, or disagree (34%). Just over two fifths (42%) of Canadians think that people who are suffering from with mental illness or psychiatric conditions should be able to access assisted dying (22% agree; 20% somewhat agree), while six percent of Canadians are unsure. 

The full survey results can be found by visiting our website.

An Angus Reid Institute survey of 1517 Canadians done March 21 - 24, 2016 found that:

• 68% of Canadians opposed forcing religiously affiliated hospitals to participate in euthanasia, 

• 62% supported religiously affiliated nursing homes from having to participate in euthanasia. 

• 36% supported forcing medical professionals who oppose euthanasia to refer their patients to a doctor who will kill their patient. 

• 88% supported a waiting period, similar to the Oregon law.

Both polls are done by recognized professional political pollsters and both polls indicate that Canadians want clear restrictions, controls and guidelines on "assisted death" (euthanasia and assisted suicide).

The LifeCanada poll was done by Public Square of 950 people done March 7- 14, 2016 found that 50% of Canadians wanted strict limits on euthanasia and only 16% would allow euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition recognizes that laws permitting a doctor to kill a patient by "assisted death" will be misused. Assisted deaths will occur without request, without being reported and outside of the rules of the law, which is occurring in Belgium. Euthanasia and assisted suicide is not in the interest of patient safety.

Dr Brad Burke: Letter to Prime Minister Trudeau

April 4, 2016

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

Office of the Prime Minister

80 Wellington Street

Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

To the Honourable Prime Minister Trudeau,

I am writing to you out of deep concern for the legislation that will soon be drafted regarding physician assisted suicide. I am so concerned, that I produced videos on the websites, DearGodLetter.ca and CherDieuLettre.ca, in the hope that more Canadians would be informed about the potential ramifications of such legislation.

As a medical doctor, there are many arguments I could provide detailing why physician assisted suicide is wrong for Canada. But the one argument that many have overlooked is the very real likelihood that physician assisted suicide in Canada would actually lead to more pain and suffering in Canada—not less.

Let me explain:

As a pain specialist I have evaluated hundreds of car accident victims over the past several years.  Interestingly, the patient suffering chronic pain from injuries sustained in the crash is almost always the victim—rarely the individual(s) responsible for the crash. Many falsely believe these patients are just trying to scam the system. While this might be the case in rare circumstances, almost always these victims have legitimate chronic pain.

Research has demonstrated that when the mind is clouded by negative emotions, such as anger, hate, bitterness, or depression, the body is unable to properly “turn off” pain signals arising from lower in the body. Car accident victims are often angry at the individual(s) who hit them, and frequently develop low mood and/or anxiety. All these negative emotions play a role in the development of chronic pain by way of something pain specialists call, “Central sensitization.” Peripheral sensitization and maladaptive central nervous system (i.e. brain) neuronal plasticity are also factors in the genesis of chronic pain. 

How does this relate to physician assisted suicide? 

If the recommendations provided by the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying become law, there will be many teenagers, parents, and grandparents killed against the will of their family members (especially those suffering from depression). Prime Minister Trudeau, it won’t be long and your children will be teenagers. You wouldn’t want someone to kill your teenagers against your will.  Why then would you want to kill other teenagers against the will of their parents?

A family can eventually learn to forgive a member who rashly commits suicide on their own. However, it will be extremely hard—if not impossible—for Canadian families to forgive the doctors and politicians responsible for their loved one’s death. The same rage that the Goldman’s displayed against O. J. Simpson will be the same anger directed at you and many others by Canadian families. These angry family members will be at significantly greater risk of developing depression and anxiety, with a high likelihood of developing chronic pain from even minor injuries—and sometimes no injury at all. For every one person you kill against the will of the family, you run a very high risk of triggering a lifetime of mental and/or physical illness/pain in at least one family member—and possibly the entire family.

Furthermore, there are over 5,000 physicians across Canada in the Coalition for HealthCARE and Conscience, committed to protecting conscience rights for health practitioners and facilities. Many will refuse to kill their patients, and refuse to refer patients to be killed. For every doctor’s license you consequently take away, you will erase on average at least 2,000 patient encounters per doctor per year. Then there’s the doctors who will just quietly leave the country, and those who will refuse to move to Canada because of the hostile environment where doctors are forced to work against their consciences. Then add to this the number of healthcare professionals who will drop out of palliative care and Geriatrics for fear of losing their licenses. Do the math and the number of Canadians affected are staggering.

Will all this not result in even more pain and suffering for Canadians in the end?

Yes, there will always be individuals who want to kill themselves at the first diagnosis of a chronic disease. And there will always be arguments saying that not everyone has equal access to quality palliative care across Canada where adequate pain control is very often achieved. But what kind of country would rather kill its citizens than provide the necessary care and compassion they deserve?

Will the Liberal Party be popular with Canadians 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years from now? 

Will the Liberal Party be popular with the Person who created the teenagers, parents, and grandparents that you will kill? 

Thank you very much for your kind attention to this letter.

Sincerely,

Brad Burke, MD, FRCPC

Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation

Cc The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice

Cc The Honourable Jane Philpott, Minister of Health

Australia Health Minister opposes euthanasia

The following article was published on the Hope Australia website on April 1, 2016.

P

Paul Russell

aul Russell is the director of Hope Australia

On March 31 Australia’s Federal Health Minister, Sussan Ley MP confirmed that she does not support euthanasia.

Ms Ley was speaking at an event in Brisbane Australia organised by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA).

A short report on the News.com.au website stated:

More should be done to improve end of life care for Australians but euthanasia is not the answer, Federal Health Minister Sussan Ley says. 

"I am the health minister and I do not support euthanasia," Ms Ley told a CEDA lunch in Brisbane on Thursday. 

"I, however, recognise that we should be able to do a lot better than we currently do, not in everyone's case but in many, with end of life care." 

A regime providing medical cannabis was the first step, she said, while funding provided to the states for palliative care was also being examined.

Sussan Ley

Ms Ley’s statement came at the same time as Federal Department of Health Secretary, Martin Bowles, told CEDA that there are reforms needed for the long term sustainability of Australia’s health system. Mr Bowles outlined the pressures facing Australia’s health system, particularly for disadvantaged communities, those in aged care, with chronic illnesses and relying on mental health systems.

“We already have one of the best health systems in the world but it is under pressure, and it continues to fail some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged Australians,” he said.

The Prime Minister and Ms Ley simultaneously announced A Healthier Medicare for chronically-ill patients in a trial primary care packaging arrangement aimed at ‘improving the way we care for Australians with chronic diseases and complex conditions – aiming to keep them out-of-hospital and living happier and healthier lives at home.’

From the Press Release: