More than 1000 New Zealand Doctors sign letter opposing euthanasia.

An Open Letter to New Zealanders

We endorse the views of the World Medical Association and the New Zealand Medical Association that physician assisted suicide and euthanasia are unethical, even if they were made legal.

We are committed to the concept of death with dignity and comfort, including the provision of effective pain relief and excellence in palliative care.

We uphold the right of patients to decline treatment, as set out in the NZ Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights.

We know that the proper provision of pain relief, even if it may unintentionally hasten the death of the patient, is ethical and legal. Equally the withdrawal or withholding of futile treatment in favour of palliative care is ethical and legal.

We believe that crossing the line to intentionally assist a person to die would fundamentally weaken the doctor-patient relationship which is based on trust and respect.

We are especially concerned with protecting vulnerable people who can feel they have become a burden to others, and we are committed to supporting those who find their own life situations a heavy burden.

Doctors are not necessary in the regulation or practice of assisted suicide. They are included only to provide a cloak of medical legitimacy. Leave doctors to focus on saving lives and providing real care to the dying.

The Washington Post Boosts Elder ‘Rational Suicide’

This article was published by National Review online on June 24, 2019.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

The media abandoned unequivocal opposition to suicide long ago. Most publications editorially support legalizing assisted suicide, and the news sides — such as the New York Times and the Associated Press — have even gone so far as to run stories lauding suicide/euthanasia “parties,” at which people celebrate the life of the host just before their death by overdose or lethal injection. PARTAY! Friends and family were so supportive, don’t you know!

Now, the Washington Post moves the ball another few yards downfield in a story from Kaiser Health News that furthers the normalization of “rational suicide” for the elderly by treating it as a respectable topic of discussion–rather than lamenting suicidal desires by oldsters as a serious mental health problem requiring unequivocal prevention efforts by a loving community. From, “As Seniors Go into Twilight Years, Some of them Privately Mull Rational Suicide:”

New Jersey recently became the eighth state to allow medical aid in dying, which permits some patients to get a doctor’s prescription for lethal drugs. That method is restricted, however, to people with a terminal condition who are mentally competent and expected to die within six months.

Patients who aren’t eligible for those laws would have to go to an “underground practice” to get lethal medication, said Timothy Quill, a palliative care physician at the University of Rochester School of Medicine. Quill became famous in the 1990s for publicly admitting that he gave a 45-year-old patient with leukemia sleeping pills so she could end her life. He said he has done so with only one other patient.

Quill said he considers suicide one option he may choose as he ages: “I would probably be a classic [case] — I’m used to being in charge of my life.” He said he might be able to adapt to a situation in which he became entirely dependent on the care of others, “but I’d like to be able to make that be a choice as opposed to a necessity.”

Quill is deemed a hero in assisted-suicide circles. He’s apparently now expanding his advocacy to include people who are not terminally ill who want to commit “rational suicide.” And why not? Once we accept assisted suicide for the terminally ill, why not others who want to escape current or feared future suffering? Shouldn’t they also have the right to die in the “time and manner of their own choosing?”

In fact, this story reminds me very much of the pieces ubiquitously published about assisted suicide in the 1990s, which would present quotes from opponents (often, yours truly), but focused the emotional heart of the narrative on people who just wanted to “die on their own terms” and the compassionate doctors who wanted to help them, but couldn’t because of the cruel laws. Indeed, the the emotional heart of this story is on seniors who want to kill themselves before falling ill or becoming debilitated:

To Lois, the 86-year-old-woman who organized the [suicide discussion] meeting outside Philadelphia, suicides by older Americans are not all tragedies. A widow with no children, Lois said she would rather end her own life than deteriorate slowly over seven years, as her mother did after she broke a hip at age 90. (Lois asked to be referred to by only her middle name so she would not be identified, given the sensitive topic.)…

Carolyn, a 72-year-old member of the group who also asked that her last name be withheld, said they live in a “fabulous place” where residents enjoy “a lot of agency.” But she and her 88-year-old husband also want the freedom to determine how they die.

A retired nurse, Carolyn said her views have been shaped in part by her experience with the HIV/AIDS epidemic. In the 1990s, she created a program that sent hospice volunteers to work with people dying of AIDS, which at the time was a death sentence.

She said many of the men kept a stockpile of lethal drugs on a dresser or bedside table. They would tell her, “When I’m ready, that’s what I’m going to do.” But as their condition grew worse, she said, they became too confused to follow through.

“I just saw so many people who were planning to have that quiet, peaceful ending when it came, and it just never came. The pills just got scattered. They lost the moment” when they had the wherewithal to end their own lives, she said.

See what I mean? A story written like this about, say, teen suicide, would evoke outrage.

And here’s a bitter irony: After helping normalize the idea of elder suicide as empowering, the story ends with the phone number of a suicide prevention hotline. That’s just a sop after potentially putting lethal ideas into readers’ heads.

If you doubt me, catch this bit:

Carolyn said when she and her neighbors met at the cafe, she felt comforted by breaking the taboo.

Yes, by all means, we must break “taboos,” as if that’s all opposition to suicide is about.

We are becoming a pro-suicide culture. I predict that in five or ten years, stories about “rational suicide” for the elderly won’t present any opposition voices at all.

Connecticut man charged with manslaughter in supposed "assisted suicide" of his wife

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A

Kevin Connors

Connecticut man has been charged with manslaughter in the death of his wife, in a case that has being referred to as assisted suicide.

Samara Abramson reporting for Fox news  stated that Kevin Connors told police that he held the gun to his wife's head as she pulled the trigger. This is being referred to as an assisted suicide case because Lori Connors had late stage ovarian cancer and Lyme disease and allegedly pulled the trigger. 

The Associated Press reported that:

The 65-year-old retired prison guard initially told police he had been woken up by the sound of a gunshot, but later admitted he helped 61-year-old Lori Conners hold a gun to her head while she pulled the trigger in their bed on Sept. 6, according to an arrest warrant affidavit. Conners said he couldn't watch his wife suffer any more.

CNN news reporter Lauren del Valle quoted Connors lawyer, Raymond Rigat as stating:

"Mr. Conners did what any loving husband would do,"

Cathy Ludlum

Cathy Ludlum from the disability rights group Second Thoughts Connecticut told Abramson from Fox news:

“If you don’t have encouragement and support around you, it’s easy to give up”

Manslaughter is the correct charge in this case. Whether Connors was a "loving" husband or not, it is not a loving act to kill or assist to kill your spouse, parent or child.

Society needs to care for people, by killing the pain not the patient.

France's highest appeal court will hear death by dehydration (Lambert) case.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Vincent Lambert

France's top appeals court will hear the case concerning the withdrawal of food and fluids from Vincent Lambert, a man who was cognitively disabled in a motorcycle accident injury in 2008. 

In 2015, Lambert's wife petitioned the court to have all treatment and care ceased including food and water. His parents urged that their son be transferred to a rehabilitation center. The legal battle concerning withdrawing fluids and food from Lambert has continued.

Euro news reported, on May 20, that doctors, at a hospital in Reims France, were sedating Lambert as part of the process to withdraw fluids and food and cause him to die by dehydration, as approved by a court order.

Vincent Lambert's mother.

Later, that day, Euro news reported that the Court of Appeal in Paris ordered that Lambert be fed and hydrated. The decision was in response to the UN Disability Rights Commission appeal. BBC news reported Lambert's mother as stating:

"They are going to restore nutrition and give him drink. For once I am proud of the courts," she said.

According to an article by Juliette Monteese published by AFP news:

the Cour de Cassation will begin examining whether a lower Paris court was within its rights to order that Lambert's feeding tubes be reinserted last month, just hours after doctors had begun switching off life support. 

The Cour de Cassation, which will not rule on the merits of maintaining Lambert's treatment, is expected to give its judgement later this week.

It is a disappointment that the court has limited the scope of its inquiry.

In early May, 2019, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of People with Disabilities intervened in the Lambert case stating that causing Lambert's death by dehydration contravened his rights as a person with disabilities. Section 25f of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities requires nations to:

25(f) Prevent discriminatory denial of health care or health services or food and fluids on the basis of disability.

Lambert is a cognitively disabled man who is not otherwise dying or nearing death. To directly and intentionally cause his death by withholding fluids is euthanasia by dehydration. If his fluids are withheld his death would not be from his medical condition but rather, he would die by dehydration, a terrible death.

Care Not Killing responds to Doctors’ Group decision to consult its members about their views on assisted suicide and euthanasia

Press Release issued on behalf of Care Not Killing
Sunday June 23, 2019

Care Not Killing notes the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) decision to consult its members about their views on assisted suicide and euthanasia, but warns that the survey must not “pre-determine” the results or rig the ballot. 

Dr Gordon MacDonald, Chief Executive of Care Not Killing commented: 

“It is sensible for respected groups like the RCGP to ask its members about their views important medical and ethical issues, but any survey must be independent and not pre-determine the result or try to rig the ballot, as we saw in the recent poll of members of the RCP (Royal College of Physicians).

“Worryingly the RCP decided to change their position unless there was an unprecedented 60 per cent supermajority in favour of retaining their opposition to assisted suicide, which ensured the college now has a neutral position on this issue. Yet that position was supported by just one in four doctors. No wonder there has been large-scale opposition to the way the poll was conducted, including a legal challenge and resignation by senior members of the ethics Committee of the RCP.

“A detailed analysis of the RCP poll results found significant opposition to changing the law among those doctors who care for patients at the end of life. This included 84.3 per cent of palliative care doctors and 80 per cent of trauma doctors.

“Most doctors are clear that they do not want a change in the law on assisted suicide or euthanasia. They recognise the dangers of ripping up long-held universal values that protect the terminally ill, sick and disabled people from feeling pressured into ending their lives because they fear becoming a care or financial burden.

“They also understand the evidence that legalising assisted suicide appears to normalise suicide in the general population. In Oregon, the place often used as a model by those promoting a change in the law, suicide rates are now 45 per cent higher than the national US average. Similar trends can be observed in Holland and Belgium.

“They also understand how changing the law is likely to fundamentally alter the doctor-patient relationship, as evidenced by a recent ComRes poll. When 2,000 members of the public were asked if GPs were given the power to help patients commit suicide it would fundamentally change the relationship between a doctor and patient, twice as many said it would (48 per cent to 23 per cent), while nearly 3 in ten (29 per cent) were not sure.”

Dr Macdonald concluded: 

“Care Not Killing looks forward to setting out the reasons why members of the Royal College of General Practitioner should continue to oppose any change to the law. Something that is shared by a majority of the medical profession, every major disability rights organisation and a majority of UK Parliamentarians who have voted against changing the law more than a dozen times since 2004.”

For media inquiries, please contact Alistair Thompson on 07970 162225.

Disabled man feeling pressured to "ask" for euthanasia

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I was contacted by man with a disability, who was telling me how he was feeling pressured to ask for euthanasia. After explaining his concerns he sent me this email comment:

I am living in the advanced stages of quadriplegia, now 33 years along. I am feeling the suggestive influence from my nursing care, regarding euthanasia. They use indirect pressure by speaking about other patients who have chosen the path of assisted death, unsolicited from me. I am worried about Canadian laws, so anti-life, and I don't ever want to end my life. I didn't choose when I was born, and I won't choose when I die. Another thing that concerns me is as these evil laws progress against the vulnerable like myself, when will this newfound right to die become the duty or obligation to die? I can see it coming...

People talk about "freedom, choice and autonomy" without realizing how these concepts only apply to euthanasia in theory. In reality, it is the doctor or nurse practitioner who decides if you should die by euthanasia and many doctors and nurse practitioners judge the equality of people with significant disabilities.

Candice Lewis with her mother.

Candice Lewis was also pressured to "ask" for assisted death (Link to the Candice Lewis story and interview) and Roger Foley also experienced the, not so subtle pressure, to ask for an assisted death (Link to the Roger Foley story).

Euthanasia is sold to the public based on theory. The lives of People with disabilities are often judged based on "quality of life" perceptions of the person who lives with disabilities. These perceptions of quality of life can be deadly.

This is why the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) sells the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care for $10 + taxes.

The Life Protecting Power of Attorney requires the person you appoint to make medical decisions on your behalf that uphold your values. It protects you from euthanasia and assisted suicide and it defines the treatment/care decisions that you would want, in the event that you are unable to make medical decisions yourself.

Purchase the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care (Link) by contacting EPC at: 1-877-439-3348  or info@epcc.ca

Oregon approves bill to expand assisted suicide law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Oregon House passed a bill on Tuesday that expands the Oregon's assisted suicide law by essentially waving the requirement of a 15 day waiting period.

Oregon Bill SB 0579 which enables a physician to wave the 15 waiting period states:

Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, if the qualified patient’s attending physician has medically confirmed that the qualified patient will, within reasonable medical judgment, die before the expiration of at least one of the waiting periods described in subsection (1) of this section, the prescription for medication under ORS 127.800 to 127.897 may be written at any time following the later of the qualified patient’s written request or second oral request under ORS 127.840.

By waving the 15 day waiting period, a person who is approved for assisted suicide could die by assisted suicide without an opportunity, if depressed, to change their mind. 

The assisted suicide lobby argues that assisted suicide laws have not expanded in Oregon, therefore there is no fear of expansion in other jurisdictions. Previous to this bill, Oregon had expanded assisted suicide by re-interpreting the meaning of terminal illness. In January 2018, Fabian Stahle proved that the Oregon Health Authority re-interpreted the meaning of terminal illness. Now Oregon has expanded the language of the legislation.

The Netherlands euthanasia law has expanding, not by changing the language of the law, but by changing the interpretation of the law. The latest Netherlands euthanasia statistics suggest that the euthanasia law was re-interpreted to include euthanasia for "completed life."

Euthanasia leader sentenced to three years (house arrest) in South Africa.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sean Davison is a euthanasia activist who was previously convicted in the death of his mother in New Zealand in 2010.

Davison who was the President of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies and a leader of Dignity South Africa was convicted in the deaths of Anrich Burger (in 2013), Justin Varian (in 2015), and Richard Holland (in 2015).
 
Shamiela Fisher, reporting for Eyewitness news, stated that Davidson was sentenced to three years correctional supervision in the deaths. Fisher stated:

The Western Cape High Court also sentenced him to eight years behind bars which has been wholly suspended for five years on condition he is not convicted of murder, attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder over this period.

The first charge relates to the death of Anrich Burger in 2013. Burger was a quadriplegic following a car accident in 2005. Davison administered a lethal dose of drugs to Burger.

The two other murder charges, which Davison has also pleaded guilty to, relate to the deaths of Justin Varian and Richard Holland.

He entered into a plea and sentencing agreement in the High Court on Wednesday in connection with cases in which he helped three Cape Town patients take their own lives.

Fisher reported that:

Professor Davison has been placed under house arrest for the full duration of his correctional supervision. He may, however, go to work, to a place of worship or visit a doctor.

I understand that this is a plea bargain deal but Davidson, the former President of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies, has essentially received no sentence in the deaths of three people. 

Being sentenced to 8 years behind bars but then being allowed to serve it as three years house arrest, but then be able to go to work, church and the doctor, is not a sentence at all.

Davidson does show the world how euthanasia activists become killers. He is known to have killed his mother and now three others.

Years ago, when I attended the World Federation of Right to Die Societies conference, I met a group of people who spent their time discussing over lunch the deaths that they had participated in.

This is a death cult not a human rights lobby.