Tuesday, February 22, 2022

Two Ontario women charged with alleged illegal euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Two Windsor Ontario women are facing murder charges in the death of a family member. Windsor police began an investigation in January and have charges two women who are not named. The Windsor Star reported:
A pair of Windsor women are facing murder charges after police say they assisted with the suicide death of a 79-year-old female family member.

Last month the major crime unit began an investigation after becoming aware of the assisted suicide death of the woman.

Two adult females were identified as being involved in assisting the woman’s suicide, police said Friday.

Two Windsor women, aged 23 and 49, are facing charges of first-degree murder and aid suicide.

The names of the victim and the accused are not being named to protect the integrity of the investigation, police said.
The particulars of the case are not known but the investigation was probably based on a family member who told the police about the irregularities related to the death.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal in Canada. This case is important because the outcome could change the criteria for who is able to participate in euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. There are many euthanasia activists who believe that anyone should be able to carry-out the act.

Friday, February 18, 2022

Physician assisted suicide – second thoughts

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article by Nancy Alisberg an attorney who worked as the legal director for Disability Rights Connecticut, was published today in the Connecticut Mirror concerning her opposition to assisted suicide.

Alisberg explains that she once supported assisted suicide but through her life experience she had second thoughts and became opposed to assisted suicide. Alisberg writes:
I believe in choice and in bodily integrity. The choices I have believed in included the right to choose the manner of one’s death. To be able to say that “enough is enough.” To be able to choose to end one’s suffering. Nothing seemed clearer. But then I had second thoughts.

I have been a civil rights lawyer for almost 40 years. In 1995 I began to develop a specialty in disability rights. In 2000 I became the Managing Attorney at the State of Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disability, and from 2017 until my retirement in 2018, I was the Legal Director at Disability Rights Connecticut.
Alisberg then explains her personal experience.
In 2010, I worked on a case that helped me understand how physician assisted suicide can result in the untimely and unnecessary death of people with disabilities who otherwise could live productive and fulfilling lives. The disabled people I represented were challenging an attempt by doctors to be exempted from state laws regarding prosecution for prescribing lethal doses of drugs to patients the doctors judged to be terminally ill and who asked for drugs to take their own lives.

I learned of individuals with significant disabilities who, while not terminally ill, could not find a way to live outside of a long-term care institution, and chose to stop receiving food and hydration or to have life support equipment disconnected. I learned that physician assisted suicide removes the impetus for doctors to treat situational depression, to develop better palliative care, and to find innovative ways to help people become independent so they do not feel like death is their only option.
Alisberg continues by writing about another disability rights case.
Case in point: I represented a 15-year-old with intellectual disabilities who was diagnosed with a treatable form of leukemia. The physicians said he should not be treated because he would not be able to understand why he was “suffering” from the side effects of the chemotherapy, and the radiation might cause him to lose additional cognitive function.

They decided that his life would no longer be worth living, and the hospital’s ethics committee concurred. After OPA’s intervention the young man was treated, went into remission, and was adopted into a loving family.

When doctors operate under the assumption that people with significant disabilities are “suffering,” an early death can begin to look reasonable. I began to understand that permitting physician assisted suicide would discourage doctors from thinking of people with disabilities as having a life worth saving. If Connecticut physicians are permitted to end lives, people with significant disabilities will be vulnerable because often they don’t want to be a burden on society and are deferential to physicians’ knowledge.
Alisberg concludes her article by explaining that people with disabilities are often viewed as terminally ill. She wrote:
The papers I filed in 2010 taught me that…

“Disability advocacy groups know that among health care providers, the distinction between disability and ‘terminal disease’ is often more a matter of perception than objective diagnosis. For example, the various manifestations of muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, or any number of other chronic conditions may be considered by some to be progressive disabilities, while others see them as ‘terminal diseases’. Some people are born with disabilities that involve multiple, complex medical issues or genetic syndromes that can, but do not always, result in shortened life expectancies. Other people with physical disabilities may experience repeated, life-threatening infections or various other serious health issues. Some even depend on life-support technologies, such as respirators or dialysis, or receive nutrition and hydration through feeding tubes and central line catheters. It is not clear at what point these people would be considered ‘terminally ill’ or how much such decisions would be influenced by pervasive stereotypes about ‘quality of life’ and frank ignorance about the possibilities of living a good life with a disability.”
Link to the James D. McGaughey case legal brief (Link).

In Europe, suicides rise after ‘right-to-die’ is legalised, says bioethicist

This article was published by Mercatornet on February 16, 2022.

Not a single country has experienced a subsequent reduction in its rates of violent suicides

David Albert Jones, Director of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre was interviewed by Mercatornet.

Right-to-die campaigners often claim that legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia will result in a fall in the number of suicides. UK bioethicist David Albert Jones studied the record in European countries where these have been legal for a number of years. His finding were published earlier this month in the Journal of Ethics in Mental Health. MercatorNet interviewed him about his research.

You’ve just published an article about what happens to the overall suicide rate when euthanasia and assisted suicide are legalised. Could you give us a snapshot?

The key finding was that, in Europe, after introducing euthanasia or assisted suicide the total number of people taking their own life or having it ended on request rose significantly when compared to neighbouring countries. At the same time there was no evidence of any reduction in unregulated non-assisted suicide when compared to neighbouring countries. In some cases non-assisted suicide also increased.

Even the Canadian Supreme Court was persuaded that euthanasia and assisted suicide do away with the need for “intentional self-initiated death”. It adopted the paradoxical notion that assisted suicide and euthanasia save lives. Is this widely accepted?

It is not widely accepted among clinicians or researchers. The published evidence all points in the opposite direction: that legalising euthanasia or assisted suicide is followed by an increase in intentional self-initiated death. However, it is quite a popular argument among lobby groups and campaign organisations. They say that legalising euthanasia or assisted suicide would help prevent intentional self-initiated death.

Let’s test-run your opponents’ point of view. Here’s a quote from a Queensland government report: “If we really want a civilised society, we should offer voluntary assisted dying to reduce the occurrence of suicide by hanging, shooting, suffocation and any other horrific means people are forced to take now, the ongoing effects of these gruesome suicides are ongoing and far reaching and could be greatly alleviated by legal and compassionate voluntary assisted dying.” How would you respond to this dramatic statement?

This is a good example. They point to a problem of suicide among chronically and terminally ill people and claim that the problem would be “greatly alleviated” by “voluntary assisted dying”. They are right about the problem but wrong about the solution. There is no evidence that it helps.

It is true that some people feel secure knowing that assisted suicide is available and this helps them to live. However, if you give people lethal drugs to end their lives some people will take the drugs and it should be no surprise that, overall, more people die.

It is also very wrong to say that people are “forced to” take their own lives when voluntary assisted dying is not available. Suicide is not forced on people by circumstances and suicide should never be presented as a reasonable solution to the challenges of life. Suicide can be prevented where people are given the right support.

But even if more people die overall is that necessarily a bad thing? What counts is how you die. Surely it is better to have your life ended by voluntary assisted dying than resort to these violent means of suicide.

This argument assumes that people will use voluntary assisted dying (euthanasia or assisted suicide) instead of non-assisted suicide and so the number of non-assisted suicides will be reduced. However, when we look at what actually happens, what we find is that the number of non-assisted suicides does not go down. Even in countries where every year thousands of people have their lives ended by “assisted dying”, there is no evidence of any reduction in non-assisted suicide. The Netherlands has the highest rate of euthanasia in Europe and it is one of the few countries in Europe where the rate of non-assisted suicide is rising.

Your paper involved a lot of number-crunching. Just briefly, what data did you use and what comparisons did you make?

The data I use was from the OECD. They collect comparable health data from different countries including suicide rates per 100,000 people. It is freely available on the website and anyone can access it and look at suicide rates in their own country when compared with other countries. I also used official figures for reported euthanasia and assisted suicide in Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium. For assisted suicide in Switzerland I used figures made available by the assisted-suicide provider Dignitas. They collate figures not only of deaths in their own clinics but of all assisted suicides by Swiss citizens. All these data are publicly available.

I compared Switzerland with Austria (its most similar non-assisted-suicide neighbour) and Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium with France and Germany (their non-euthanasia neighbours).

And what did you find, overall, for Switzerland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium?

I found in every case that the number of self-initiated deaths went up after introducing euthanasia or assisted suicide. I found that in some countries non-assisted suicides had gone down and, in some countries, they had gone up, but compared to neighbours that had not introduced euthanasia or assisted suicide the rate of non-assisted suicide never went down. It stayed the same or increased.

You did a similar study about the situation in the United States? Is the data stronger for Europe?

The 2015 study that I was involved in, looking at US data, used a more robust statistical method. It controlled for different factors and calculated figures for state and year effects.

The present study uses neighbouring countries as controls and does not provide any estimate of statistical significance. Nevertheless, this gives some indication of large scale effects and the patterns that I found were repeated in different countries and also replicated the results of the earlier study in the United States.

It adds to the evidence that if you introduce euthanasia or assisted suicide more people will die by their own hand and the study gave no indication of any reduction in non-assisted suicide.

How about the suicide rate for women?

That is a good question. It was very noticeable that in all the countries I looked at the changes were greater in women. For example, while the rate of total suicide, inclusive of assisted suicide, in Switzerland increased somewhat since 1998 (from 19 per 100,000 population to 22.2), the rate of total suicide for women increased dramatically, almost doubling (from 9.4 to 18.6).

Again, in Belgium since the law changed in 2002, the non-assisted suicide rate has not gone down as much in Belgium as in neighbouring non-euthanasia countries. Because of this, by 2016 it had the fifth highest suicide rate in Europe, exceeded only by the former communist countries Hungary Slovenia, Latvia and Lithuania. However, for women the contrast with other countries was even stronger.

By 2016, Belgium had the highest suicide rate among women of any country in Europe at 8.8 deaths by suicide per 100,000 population. For comparison, the respective figure the United Kingdom was 3.3 while in New Zealand and Australia it was 6.1 and 6.0 respectively.

The reasons for this are not clear. It may be because women who die by suicide more often chose a means that is similar to assisted suicide, that is, the ingesting of a lethal dose of drugs. Men more often chose more violent methods. However, this is speculative. More research is needed to explore why these changes have a greater adverse impact on women.

This is beyond the scope of your paper, but why do more people commit suicide overall after legalisation? Is there some sort of suicide contagion?

The paper was about what happens, not why. However, it has been argued that introducing euthanasia or assisted suicide makes it acceptable to end one’s own life, a message at variance with that of suicide prevention campaigns. In my view, in countries where euthanasia or assisted suicide is legal there is still a question of whether these practices should be encouraged or whether countries should address the reasons why people seek to end their lives prematurely. Death is inevitable — but it is not inevitable that someone dies by their own hand or at their own request. People can be helped to avoid this.

Thursday, February 17, 2022

Italy's Constitutional Court rejects euthanasia referendum

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In September 2019, the Italian Constitutional Court opened the door to assisted suicide in Italy.

The statement appeared to limit the extent of the decision to people being kept alive on life-support but further reading suggests that the decision was much wider. A Guardian article stated:
The court said that a patient’s condition must be “causing physical and psychological suffering that he or she considers intolerable”. 
Following approval of the decision by a local ethical committee, public health authorities should verify all conditions are met.
Since the court used the language “causing physical and psychological suffering that he or she considers intolerable” the decision allowed assisted suicide to a wider group of people.

In July 2020, aItalian court acquitted assisted suicide activists Marco Cappato and Mina Welby in the assisted suicide death of Davide Trentini in the April 2017 Dignitas assisted suicide clinic death in Switzerland. The judgement did not directly challenge the law but decided that Caputo and Welby did not break the law because they did not instigate the act. Based on this decision, the Italian law continues to apply to physicians who would instigates the act.

Caputo then organized a referendum petition on euthanasia and assisted suicide. On February 16, Italy's Constitutional Court rejected the referendum on euthanasia as reported by Euronews:

Italy's Constitutional Court has rejected a petition to hold a referendum on euthanasia and legally-assisted suicide.

The court said a proposed vote on the matter would not sufficiently protect "weak and vulnerable" people and would therefore violate the constitution.

A petition for a referendum on the right to die had collected more than 750,000 signatures last August, well above the threshold required to trigger a vote.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is pleased by this decision but we recognize that a previous court decision approved assisted suicide and the Italian government will be debating legalislation to legalize euthanasia.

Sadly, in November 2021, an ethics committee in the central Italian region of Marche approved the first assisted suicide death, a man with quadriplegia known as Mario, based on the 2019 court decision.

EPC is particularly concerned that the Italian assisted suicide court decisions all concern people with disabilities. The 2019 court decision discriminates against people with disabilities who can now be abandoned to death.

EPC - USA files brief to Massachusetts Supreme Court in the Kligler assisted suicide case.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Directive, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Link to the EPC-USA brief (Link).

In January 2020 the assisted suicide lobby appealed a Massachusetts Superior court decision which found that there was no right to assisted suicide in Massachusetts. 

Recently the Massachusetts Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and yesterday, EPC-USA submitted a brief in the Massachusetts Supreme Court in this case. 

The case known as Kligler concerns Dr Roger Kligler, who is living with prostate cancer and seeking death by assisted suicide and Dr Alan Schoenberg, who is willing to prescribe lethal drugs for Kligler to die by assisted suicide.  Kligler who claimed to be terminally ill when launching the case in 2016 remains alive today.

Kligler and Schoenberg are arguing that doctors cannot be prosecuted for prescribing lethal drugs for assisted suicide to a competent terminally ill person under the Massachusetts state constitution.

The EPC-USA brief agrues the following:

  • There is no fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide in the Massachusetts Constitution.

The Appellants seek to establish a previously unrecognized right to “medical aid in dying,” where a doctor prescribes lethal medication for use in committing suicide. But the widespread prohibition—not acceptance—of assisted suicide is deeply rooted in Massachusetts’ and the Nation’s history and tradition. And the vast majority of states and secular medical associations oppose it today.

  • There is a fundamental difference between refusing medical treatment and assisted suicide.

Creating a right to physician-assisted suicide would not be a mere expansion of the right to refuse life-saving treatment. The right to reject treatment is based on the common-law right to reject a battery. And death occurs, if at all, by natural causes. Assisted suicide is different: it invites the intrusion of a lethal agent into the patient’s body, intentionally causing death.

  • A right to assisted suicide cannot be a limited right as claimed by the appellants.

Appellants are wrong to suggest a constitutional right to assisted suicide could be limited to a narrow class of people. And that would create problems courts are not equipped to solve.

In other words, if there is a right to assisted suicide then it would be discriminatory to limit that right to certain groups of people, such as people who are terminally ill.

At the time, of the lower court hearing, the Massachusetts Attorney General argued that this is a legislative not a judicial issue. 

EPC-USA warns that this case could overturn the US Supreme Court Glucksberg decision which found that there was no right to assisted suicide but a State had the right to legislate on the issue.

EPC-USA worked with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) to prepare the Amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Court in this case.


Monday, February 14, 2022

Legalizing assisted suicide does not decrease other suicide deaths?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A new research article published by the Journal of Ethics in Mental Health (JEMH) examines the question - Does legalizing assisted suicide reduce other suicide deaths? David Albert Jones, the Director, Anscombe Bioethics Centre tackles this issues by analyzing the suicide rates and other factors in nations that have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide as compared to nations where it is prohibited.

Jones's research is significant as the assisted death lobby has continually argued that legalizing assisted death prevents other suicides. This argument was accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada in its Carter decision which led to the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada, now referred to as MAiD.

In other words, the Carter decision in Canada found that prohibiting assisted death directly affected the right to life because some people will die earlier by suicide, if assisted death is not an option.

David Jones
As stated by Jones:
This paradoxical hypothesis played a key role in the Carter v Canada decision of 2015. It was argued that the right to life was engaged because lives were endangered by the prohibition of “physician-assisted dying” (which in this context referred to euthanasia and/or assisted suicide): [57] The trial judge found that the prohibition on physician-assisted dying had the effect of forcing some individuals to take their own lives prematurely, for fear that they would be incapable of doing so when they reached the point where suffering was intolerable. On that basis, she found that the right to life was engaged. [58] We see no basis for interfering with the trial judge’s conclusion on this point. The evidence of premature death was not challenged before this Court. It is therefore established that the prohibition deprives some individuals of life. (Carter v. Canada [Attorney General], 2015)
Jones explaines that in 2015, he was part of similar research concerning suicide data comparing American states that had legalized assisted suicide to American states that had not legalized assisted suicide. That study they concluded that legalizing assisted suicide may have resulted in a 6.3% increase in other suicide rates.

Jones comments on criticism of his study by Downie and Lowe, who stated that similar trends did not exist in European countries that had legalized euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. Jones states that Downie and Lowe didn't argue that the American study was inaccurate but rather that other jurisdictions conflict with his conclusions. Jones then states that this study examines the European data.

Jones first examines the data from Switzerland. Switzerland did not legalize assisted suicide, but rather it has permitted assisted suicide since 1942 unless done for "selfish reasons." Jones explains that assisted suicide remained rare in Switzerland until about 1998. Jones then states:
Lowe and Downie provide a graph including OECD suicide data in Switzerland which they label “non-assisted suicide rates per 100,000 residents” (2017, p. 7). However, in this Lowe and Downie are mistaken. OECD suicide rates only began to exclude assisted suicide from the overall suicide figures in Switzerland in 2009 (OECD, 2019). Prior to this the OECD suicide rate for Switzerland was the rate of suicide inclusive of assisted suicide. To estimate what the OECD non-assisted suicide rate for Switzerland would have been prior to 2009 and to estimate what suicide rate (incl. AS) would be from 2009, on the basis on OECD Suicide Data, it is necessary to draw on assisted suicide data collated by Dignitas.
Jones then compares the suicide rate in Switzerland to that of Austria, a neighboring country to Switzerland. Jones found that:
From 1990, the non-assisted suicide rates in Switzerland and in Austria decline in parallel. There is a slightly larger drop in non-assisted suicide in Switzerland in 2003. This was the year Switzerland voted to reduce its army from 400,000 to 200,000 and it has been argued that this move reduced suicide among young men in Switzerland as fewer men had access to firearms (Reisch et al., 2013). However, overall, there is no discernible difference in the rate of decline of non-assisted suicide between the two countries over this period. In contrast, from 1998, the rate of suicide (incl. AS) increases in Switzerland relative to non-assisted suicide in Austria and, from 2010 to 2017, Swiss suicide incl. AS increases in absolute terms (from 16.1 to 22.2). Indeed, the rate of suicide incl. AS was discernibly higher in 2017 (22.2) than it was in 1998 (19.0).
Jones proves that the suicide rate in Austria, which prohibited assisted suicide decreased while between 2010 and 2017 the suicide rate in Switzerland increased. This does not prove a direct corelation but it does prove that legalizing assisted suicide does not reduce other suicide deaths.

When comparing the data with relation to men and women, there is a clear increase in the suicide rates for Swiss women as compared to Austrian woman. The data for women, who tend to have a much lower suicide rate, indicates a clear increase for Swiss women as compared to Austrian women.

Jones states:
By 2017 the suicide rate (incl. AS) for females in Switzerland is roughly twice the rate it was 1998 (from 9.4 up to 18.6) while the non-assisted suicide rate of females in Austria over this period declined from 8.7 to 5.0 and the non-assisted suicide rate of females in Switzerland declined by a similar amount (from 8.8 to 5.8). This dramatic rise in suicide inclusive of assisted suicide among women in Switzerland (which is the way the OECD suicide rate was calculated prior to 2009) is driven by large increases in assisted suicide and is associated with no discernible reduction in non-assisted suicide in Switzerland relative to Austria.
Jones concludes:

The rate of suicide incl. AS has clearly risen in Switzerland relative to Austria. At the same time, there is no indication of a relative decrease in non-assisted suicide.

Jones then analyses data from Luxembourg as compared to France and Germany. I will not comment on this data since Luxembourg is a very small country.

Jones then compares the suicide data in the Netherlands to that of Germany. Jones states:
In both jurisdictions there was a decline in non-assisted suicide between 1990 and 2001 which continued until 2007. However, whereas rates of non-assisted suicide in Germany remained relatively flat between 2007 and 2016 (as mentioned earlier), the rates of non-assisted suicide in the Netherlands have increased steadily since 2007. The rate of intentional self-initiated death in the Netherlands, which had been declining when the law was passed, has also risen steeply since 2007.

Overall, the Netherlands, which is the country with the longest continuous history of euthanasia in Europe, has seen the highest increases in non-assisted suicide in Western Europe between 2001 and 2016. From the statistics provided by OECD Suicide Data (2021), the only other EU country that saw a higher net increase in non-assisted suicide in this period was Greece, but the rates in Greece are still at much lower levels than those in the Netherlands (4.0 in Greece in 2016 compared with 10.5 in the Netherlands). Note also that Greece suffered a catastrophic economic collapse over this period.
Jones concluded:
In relation to the Netherlands it is certainly false to say that, “suicide rates either stayed the same or decreased after MAID legislation” (Dembo et al., 2018, p. 453). Non-assisted suicide in the Netherlands rose between 2001 and 2016 from 9.1 to 10.5 while in Germany, it fell from 12.8 to 10.2. Furthermore, this has happened at the same time as there have been dramatic rises in rates of intentional self-initiated death (up from 21.9 to 46.3 per 100,000). These patterns were all more pronounced in females.
The Netherlands suicide rate has increased since 2001 as compared to Germany. In 2001 the suicide rate was lower in the Netherlands than Germany and now it is significantly higher.

Finally Jones examines suicide data in Belgium as compared to France. Jones chooses France, for comparison, because 40% of Belgians speak French as their native language and the Belgian suicide data is very similar to that of France. Jones explains that unlike the Netherlands and Switzerland Belgium has seen a drop in the non-assisted suicide - suicide rate but the drop in suicide in Belgium is not as great as the drop in other European nations including France. Jones states:
Belgium introduced euthanasia by law in 2002 and, in contrast with the Netherlands and Luxembourg, has seen a decline in non-assisted suicide since passing the law. Nevertheless, the fall in non-assisted suicide in Belgium from 2002 to 2016 (19.5 to 15.9) is not as great as that in France (17.6 to 12.3). Indeed, in 2016 Belgium had the highest non-assisted suicide rate in Western Europe. Within the European Union, only the former communist countries Hungary, Slovenia, Latvia, and Lithuania had higher rates of non-assisted suicide (OECD Suicide Data, 2021).

The increase in non-assisted suicide relative to France, especially among females, at a time when non-assisted suicide rates where declining across Europe, explains how, by 2016, Belgium came to have the highest non-assisted suicide rate among women of any EU country, former communist countries included (OECD Suicide Data, 2021).
Jones research article proves that Lowe and Downie were wrong when they opined that in Switzerland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium “suicide rates either stayed the same or decreased after MAID legislation” (Dembo et al., 2018, p. 453). Jones then proves that:
• In all of the four jurisdictions (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Belium) there have been very steep rises in suicide (incl. AS) or in ISID after the introduction of EAS. A striking example is the suicide rate (incl. AS) of women in Switzerland which has roughly doubled since 1998. Many more people have died prematurely after these changes.

• In none of the four jurisdictions did non-assisted suicide rates decrease after introduction of EAS relative to the most similar non-EAS neighbour. There is no indication of prevention of non-assisted suicide at a population level.

• In one of the four jurisdictions, the Netherlands, which has the longest history and greatest number of deaths by EAS in Europe, the rates of non-assisted suicide have increased since EAS was legalised by statute. This was both an increase in absolute terms and an increase relative to its only non-EAS neighbour: Germany.

• In another of the four jurisdictions, Belgium, which has the second highest rate of the death by EAS in Europe, while the rates of non-assisted suicide decreased in absolute terms, they increased relative to its most similar non-EAS neighbour: France. It is striking that Belgium now has the highest female non-assisted suicide rate in Europe, based on OECD Suicide Data.

• In all these respects the pattern that emerges from the European data conforms with the pattern that Jones and Paton discovered in the United States data.
For Canadians, Jones proves that the assertion that legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide will prevent suicide is not borne out by the data, even though the Supreme Court of Canada falsely agreed that legalizing assisted death was necessary to protect the Constitutional Right to Life.

Jones states:
Indeed, if one considers the community as a whole, it is not the prohibition of EAS but the introduction of EAS that is associated with “evidence of premature death” (Carter v. Canada [Attorney General], 2015, para. 58). Furthermore, the data from Europe and from the U.S. indicate that subsequent to the introduction of EAS, it is women who have most been placed at risk of avoidable premature death from changes in rates of intentional self-initiated death and from changes in rates of non-assisted suicide.
Legalizing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide does not lessen the rate of other suicides and may directly corelate to an increase in other suicides.

More articles on this topic:

Dignity Therapy: Making the last words count.

People who have follow the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will have noticed that EPC has promoted Dr Harvey Chochinov's research and Dignity Therapy. We truly believe that Dignity Therapy should be instituted everywhere. Alex Schadenberg.

This article was published by Knowable Magazine and republished by Mercatornet.

By Lola Butcher.

In the mid-1990s, psychiatrist Harvey Max Chochinov and his colleagues were researching depression and anxiety in patients approaching the end of their lives when they became curious about this question: Why do some dying people wish for death and contemplate suicide while others, burdened with similar symptoms, experience serenity and a will to live right up to their last days?

Over the next decade, Chochinov’s team at the University of Manitoba in Canada developed a therapy designed to reduce depression, desire for death and suicidal thoughts at the end of life. Dignity therapy, as it is called, involves a guided conversation with a trained therapist to allow dying people to speak about the things that matter most to them.

“It is a conversation that we invite people into, to allow them to say the things they would want said before they are no longer in a position to be able to say it themselves,” Chochinov says.

Dignity therapy is little known to the general public but it has captivated end-of-life researchers around the world. Studies have yet to pin down exactly what benefits it confers, but research keeps confirming one thing: Patients, families and clinicians love it.

These end-of-life conversations are important, says Deborah Carr, a sociologist at Boston University who studies well-being in the last stages of life and explored the topic in the 2019 Annual Review of Sociology.

A key need of people who know they are dying is tending to relationships with people who are important to them. This includes “being able to communicate their wishes to family and ensuring that their loved ones are able to say goodbye without regret,” she says.

And the closer we get to death, the more we need to understand what our lives have amounted to, says Kenneth J. Doka, senior vice president for grief programs for Hospice Foundation of America.

“As people reach the end of life, they want to look back and say, ‘My life counted. My life mattered. My life had value, had some importance,’ in whatever way they define it,” Doka says. “I think dignity therapy speaks to that need to find meaning in life and does it in a very structured and very successful way.”

A dignified ending

Chochinov’s search to understand why some people feel despair at the end of life while others do not led him to countries like Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, where euthanasia and assisted suicide have long been legal. There he learned that the most common reason people gave for seeking assisted suicide was loss of dignity.

To learn more, Chochinov and his colleagues asked 213 terminal cancer patients to rate their sense of dignity on a seven-point scale. Nearly half reported a loss of dignity to some degree, and 7.5 percent identified loss of dignity as a significant concern. Patients in this latter group were much more likely to report pain, desire for death, anxiety and depression than those who reported little or no loss of dignity.

Dignity at the end of life means different things to different people, but in interviews with 50 terminally ill patients, Chochinov and his colleagues found that one of the most common answers related to a dying person’s perception of how they were seen by others.

“Dignity is about being deserving of honour, respect or esteem,” Chochinov says. “Patients who felt a lost sense of dignity oftentimes perceived that others didn’t see them as somebody who had a continued sense of worth.”

Dignity therapy is tailored to enhance this sense of worth. In a session, a therapist — typically a clinician or social worker — carefully leads the patient through a series of nine questions (see graphic) that help a person express how their life has been worthwhile.

“It’s not like a recipe, that you can just read out these nine questions and then call it dignity therapy,” Chochinov says. “We train therapists so that we can help them guide people through a very organic kind of conversation.”

The session typically lasts around an hour. About half is spent gathering biographical highlights, and the other half focuses on what Chochinov calls the “more wisdom-laden” thoughts that the patient wants to share.

A few days later, the patient receives an edited draft for review. “There’s an ethos of immediacy — your words matter, you matter,” he says. “They can edit it and they can sign off on it to say, ‘That is what I want as part of my legacy.’”


But does it work?

Miguel Julião, a physician in Lisbon, Portugal, specialises in helping patients who have difficult symptoms, which is why he was asked one day a few years ago to see a patient suffering with unbearable pain.

“The minute I got into his room, he told me ‘I would like you to help me die soon,’” Julião says. “I told him, ‘I don’t agree with euthanasia and I don’t do it, but I would like to know about you as a person and what you are most proud of in your life.’”

In the next few minutes, Julião learned about the man’s pride in raising “two good human beings” and stories of their life as a family. And he received an invitation to return for more conversations, which continued until the man died a month later.

The encounter prompted Julião, who was pursuing his doctorate at the time, to pivot his research and focus squarely on dignity therapy. He has had lots of company. Chochinov estimates that nearly 100 peer-reviewed research papers, and at least four in-depth analyses — “systematic reviews” of the accumulated science — have been published so far, and more studies are ongoing. The largest study yet, of 560 patients treated at six sites across the country, is now being conducted by Diana Wilkie, a nursing professor at the University of Florida, and colleagues.

Wilkie also helped conduct the first systematic review, published in 2015, which came up with a conundrum. When all studies were viewed together, the evidence that dignity therapy reduced desire for death was lacking. “The findings have been mixed,” she says. “In the smaller studies, you see benefit sometimes and sometimes not; in the larger studies, not.”

The most definitive study — Chochinov’s original clinical trial, completed by 326 adults in Canada, the United States and Australia who were expected to live six months or less — found that the therapy did not mitigate “outright distress such as depression, desire for death or suicidality,” although it provided other benefits, including an improved quality of life and a change in how the patients’ family regarded and appreciated them. A few years later, however, Julião conducted a much smaller trial in Portugal in which dignity therapy did reduce demoralisation, desire for death, depression and anxiety.

Julião thinks that the different outcomes reflect differences in the patient groups: His study focused on people experiencing high levels of distress, while Chochinov’s did not. But Julião also notes that his study was small, with only 80 participants.

“We still need more evidence,” he says. “But, on the other hand, you see a high interest among clinicians, because they see it work in daily practice.”

Positive and negative results also may depend upon how studies measure “success.” Scott Irwin, a psychiatrist at Cedars-Sinai Cancer in Los Angeles, worked at a San Diego hospice that introduced dignity therapy in 2009.

“It was absolutely worthwhile — no question,” Irwin says. “Not only did the patients love it, but the nurses loved it and got to know their patients better. It was sort of a transformative experience for patients and the care team.”

Indeed, Wilkie’s literature review reported “overwhelming acceptability, rare for any medical intervention.” Patients seem to get something out of it, even if that “something” isn’t captured by measures like reduced desire for death. In one study of 100 terminally ill patients who received dignity therapy, 91 percent reported feeling satisfied or highly satisfied; in another, 93 percent gave high ratings of satisfaction.

In Portugal, family members of dying individuals have prompted Julião to develop new uses for the therapy. He and Chochinov first adapted the interview to be appropriate for adolescents. More recently, two individuals told Julião they regretted that their loved ones had died without receiving dignity therapy, prompting the researchers to create a posthumous therapy for surviving friends and family members.

In a study of this interview protocol for survivors, “we have wonderful, wonderful comments from people saying, ‘It’s like I’m here with him or with her,’” Julião says. Doing dignity therapy posthumously could be useful in helping families deal with bereavement, he says — an idea he’d like to test.

Barriers to use

But for all its appeal, few patients actually receive dignity therapy. Though the tool is well-known among clinicians and social workers who specialise in caring for seriously ill patients, it is not routinely available in the US, Doka says.

A primary barrier is time. The therapy session is designed to last just one hour, but in Irwin’s experience at the hospice, patients were often too tired or pain-ridden to get through the entire interview in one session. On average, a therapist met with a patient four times. And the interview then had to be edited by someone trained to create a concise narrative that is true to the patient’s perspective and sensitive in dealing with any comments that might be painful for loved ones to read.

Julião says he transcribes each patient’s interview himself and also edits it into the legacy document. The entire process typically takes about eight days; he suspects this is why he is one of only two people who provide dignity therapy in Portugal. He says he has enthusiastic responses from clinicians and social workers attending the lectures and workshops he has conducted since 2011. “But they don’t do it clinically because it’s hard for clinicians to dedicate so much time to this.”

Dignity therapy is most widely available in Winnipeg, its birthplace, where all clinicians at Cancer Care Manitoba, the organisation that provides cancer services in the province, have been trained in the protocol. If a patient expresses interest, or a clinician thinks a patient might be interested, a referral is made to one of the therapists, among them Chochinov.

“And then I see them, either in their hospital bed or more typically at their home,” he says.

A few months ago, he spent about an hour with a dying woman. She told him about her proudest accomplishments and shared some guidance for her loved ones. 

A few days after he delivered a transcript of the conversation, the woman thanked him by email for their discussion and for the document that “will give my family something to treasure.”

“Dignity therapy is part of the bridge from here to there, from living my life fully to what remains at the end,” she wrote. “Thank you for helping me to tell this story.”

Lola Butcher, who writes about health care and health policy, hopes to come to a dignified end a long time from now. You can reach her at lola@lolabutcher.com or @lolabutcher.

Dr Josephine Glaser: Response to George Will's support for assisted suicide

Regarding George F. Will’s Jan. 21 op-ed about assisted suicide laws.

Dr Josephine Glaser
Josephine L. A. Glaser, MD, FAAFP
Director Euthanasia Prevention Coalition-USA

Mr. Will’s article has an emotional appeal favoring medical aid in dying, a pleasant sounding name for physician assisted suicide at end of life. I also got the sense that Mr. Will was attempting to move the opinion of the US public and legislators toward favoring euthanasia. Currently, our northern neighbors legally allow their doctors and clinicians to not just prescribe lethal injections, but also administer them to patients, thereby killing patients by lethal injections. This is diametrically opposed to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization standard of palliative and hospice care. In addition, the Center to Advance Palliative Care is a vibrant network of health care professionals at over 1,700 organizations that train staff of all specialties and disciplines in communication, pain and symptom management, and other key skills to improve the care of people living with a serious or incurable illness.

I am a Board Certified Family Medicine physician specialist with over 26 years experience in the art and science of womb-to-tomb care for individuals, families, and communities. My physician mentors taught me the way of palliative and hospice care as founded and practiced by Dame Cicely Saunders. Physicians, allied healthcare professionals, and healthcare systems should continue to help people who are living with incurable diseases or are imminently dying to live as well as they can until their natural death. Most physicians seek to relieve symptoms with medical aids for patients who are living with a terminal diagnosis or imminently dying of a terminal illness. Legislators serve their constituents by protecting the lives of vulnerable individuals and holding doctors and healthcare systems accountable to living up to the ideals of a doctor as healer and helper: “As to diseases, make a habit of two things—to help, or at least to do no harm.” Hippocrates 460-357 BC

This fundamental truth is what is overlooked, minimized, disparaged, conflated or ignored in all Death with Dignity bills. In 2003, assisted suicide advocates ran a succesful messaging campaign. “Medical aid in dying” replaced physician (and now clinician) assisted suicide so as to make the idea and act more palatable to the public and legislative bodies. Assisted suicide advocates did the same by changing the organization’s name from Hemlock Society to Compassion and Choices. When legislators and the public are persuaded by heavily funded assisted suicide advocates to pass public policy allowing doctors and clinicians to legally hasten or accelerate the death of individuals (beware: removal of safeguards) by prescribing off-label use of lethal doses of medications and market that as “medical aid in dying” and a “peaceful death,” then the poor, the vulnerable, the forgotten, and the impaired are at greatest risk of unwanted accelerated death. It is my medical opinion that Physicians, clinicians, pharmacists, and healthcare systems who support assisted suicide are providing false compassion and sub-standard palliative & hospice care. Best practice palliative and hospice care involves physician led and individualized care coordination with medications for pain, shortness of breath and agitation. There is skin care and personal care. There is emotional, psychosocial, and spiritual care. The best practice standard of palliative and hospice care is natural death which is a death with dignity.

Wednesday, February 9, 2022

Why an atheist opposes the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia?

The following speech was delivered by Kevin Yuill at a press conference in Rome opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide that was co-sponsored by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Kevin Yuill is the author of the book - Assisted Suicide: The Liberal, Humanist Case Against Legalisation.

I must apologise for the academic take on this but I find that the more I research and think about this subject, the more disturbing it gets. I wish to point out the dangers to our humanity, looking at the present and at history (I am a historian).

 Let us first look at moral inequality. Do we wish for there to be separate moral categories of people? Sanctioning AS/E for some categories of people renders them morally unequal to those who we do not sanction and, even more, actively try to prevent their suicide.

Moral equality is not simply a religious concept but is also expressed as the inherent dignity of human beings. It was encapsulated in the Enlightenment and expressed in the French revolution: “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite” and the American Revolution: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal.”

Moral equality also finds expression in homicide laws. It is no less wicked to kill an 86yr old who does not value her life than it is a 24yr old who does value his life. The equal value that we place on the lives of both of these people – and all others – reflects this moral equality.

Why would this be any different for suicide? It is right to strenuously prevent people from killing themselves, even if these people do not value their own existences at the time. That is our job as fellow humans, as a community. We do not say “violenti not fit injuria” (there is no crime when consent is given) in relation to most suicides. If we allow (and assist) suicides for the purpose of preventing “unbearable suffering” – which, of course, is not a medical prognosis but entirely subjective, how can we not respect the wishes of the lovelorn 24 yr old?

For a humanist, suicide is occasionally the right decision for the individual. Someone sacrificing herself to save others, for instance, is a beautiful act, rightly admired and celebrated. But we may not make this decision for someone else. And our humanity demands that we save the man teetering on the bridge. It is always a virtuous act to save a life, even if the person manages to kill himself the next day.

We must assume a human life is worth saving. We also try to prevent violence against a member of our community, even if the killer and victim are the same person. When we see someone drowning, we overcome our natural respect for the physical integrity of the other person and, as I was once trained, render them unconscious if it is necessary to save them. Sometimes, we must protect people from themselves.

Ah, but what of those categories of people whose remaining existence is only suffering? Surely, we should honour their wishes. They have very little time left and life can only mean torture.

Let us look at suffering. In areas where it is legal, pain – or even concern about it – is not in the top five reasons why people take the option. Of course, a terminal prognosis or being told that a condition will gradually rob you of all of your abilities will depress people, very understandably. They will suffer. But, as those who work in hospices will tell you, this suffering – if not the underlying disease – is curable. People can adjust.

The key is that the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill” is not reserved for Christians. Once we draw a line between categories of people whose lives we believe to be expendable and those whose suicides we will strenuously try to prevent, we have not so much stepped onto a slippery slope as stepped off of a moral precipice. For who can draw that line and maintain it in the “safeguards” that we hear so much about? And where should it be drawn?

Every country that legalized assisted suicide and/or euthanasia on the basis of unbearable suffering of the dying has expanded the categories of those eligible it within 10 years. The Netherlands is a case in point. The “Postma” case concerned a doctor who killed his mother-in-law who was dying of cancer and begged to die. Through the years, death as treatment has expanded to include the autistic and intellectually impaired, the profoundly mentally ill, and other categories. The increase in categories has been even more dramatic in Canada, where the stipulation that death be “reasonably foreseen” has been dropped. Disabled people in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada now are eligible simply because their disability is assumed to decrease their quality of life. The phrase “better off dead” is often used about disabled lives.

History

What is the real project of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide? It is an attempt – an honest and usually well-motivated attempt – to rationalize human existence, to remove the messiness at the end of life, to prevent suffering. It is not about the right to die. The equal right of all competent adults to end their lives – with assistance – would at least honour equality and human freedom. But those campaigning for it oppose suicide – and even object strenuously to the term assisted suicide.

In history, the principles behind euthanasia are 1) mercy towards the suffering; 2), the argument that the economic resources spent in keeping someone with minimal quality of life alive would be better spent elsewhere.

To eradicate suffering is a noble but chimerical and inherently dangerous project. Samuel Williams , who coined the phrase euthanasia in 1870 combined compassion and contempt when he said that no problem occurs when “a life is taken away that has ceased to be useful to others, and has become an unbearable infliction to its possessor”. With chloroform, it became possible to reduce suffering. But this was soon rationalized into reducing the sum of human suffering. Therefore, in the first few years of the twentieth century, Dr Ella K. Dearborn called for “euthanasia for the incurably ill, insane, criminals, and degenerates.”

In Germany – even before the notorious T4 Aktion programme launched during the Third Reich, the suggestions for euthanasia contained both compassion and the need to rationalize and control death. In 1922 one legislator sent demands to the Reichstag: 'i. Extermination of the mentally ill. 2. Mercy killing for the ' terminally ill. 3. Mercy killing for the exhausted. 4. The killing of crippled and incurably ill children.'" This, of course, does reduce suffering.

In the Netherlands and in Canada, we are moving in this direction. We already have mercy killing for the terminally ill and the option of suicide – though not extermination – for the mentally ill. In the Netherlands, the “Completed Life” initiative, which has the support of mainstream political parties – promises the option of euthanasia for all those over 74 – mercy killing for the exhausted.

Moreover, the second principle – that economic resources are better spent elsewhere than keeping someone with minimal quality of life alive – contains a totalitarian principle: that the individual should be sacrificed for the good of society. It is still part of the discussion though it is not promoted as it has been in the past. Again, it threatens our moral sense, our respect for the humanity in every person.

None of this is to suggest that those who want euthanasia and assisted dying share anything with the Nazis, who took this logic to extreme and brutally murdered people in psychiatric hospitals. My opponents are genuinely humanitarian people who are well motivated.

But euthanasia and assisted dying pose a technical solution to a moral crisis for both the individual and for society. It is the individual who is faced with the existential question that has long faced humans – to be or not to be. Society wishes to solve the problem of suffering with a solution that, to use H. L. Mencken’s phrase, is simple, neat, and wrong.