Legalizing assisted suicide increases suicide.

This article was published by National Review online on November 15, 2022

Wesley Smith

Wesley J Smith

Another study — actually, a study of other studies — has concluded that legalizing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide leads to more suicide. From “Does Legalising Assisted Suicide Make Things Better Or Worse?” published by the Anscombe Bioethics Center:

Whether legalising EAS encourages suicide or helps prevent suicide is an empirical question. We need to look at the evidence. There have been several studies published on this topic in peer review journals in recent years.

These studies have found that, after EAS is introduced:

• Rates of EAS increase significantly
• Rates of self-initiated deaths (EAS plus non-assisted suicide) increase significantly
• The increase in self-initiated death is disproportionately high in women
• Rates of non-assisted suicide also increase, in some cases significantly

No study has found a reduction in non-assisted suicide relative to non-EAS states.

It’s only logical. When the popular culture, media, some doctors, political advocates, and the law push some suicides, people with suicidal ideation for causes outside the (then) permitted legal parameters for facilitation hear the message that suicide is proper, which may encourage them to take lethal action, too.

As Lincoln said about American slavery and its opposition back in the day, eventually, the country would either become all one thing or all the other. The same is true about suicide. Encouraging and aiding suicide for some — while trying to prevent others from killing themselves — is inconsistent and over time, untenable. We either try to prevent them all, or eventually we will end up akin to where Germany is now, thanks to a court ruling: suicide on demand for any reason — or no reason at all.

It's our choice.

Assisted suicide activist promotes Oregon for suicide tourism

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have written on several occasions how the State of Oregon, on March 28, 2022, agreed to remove it's residency requirement for assisted suicide enabling anyone to die by assisted suicide in Oregon.

In his recent presentation in Ohio, where assisted suicide is prohibited, Thaddeus Pope, a long-time promoter of euthanasia and assisted suicide, argued that Ohio physicians should inform patients that may qualify, that death by assisted suicide is an option in Oregon.

Recently the Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM) published an article by Thaddeus Pope et al concerning Oregon withdrawing its residency requirement for assisted suicide. In his JGIM article Pope explains:

In Gideonse v. Brown, an Oregon physician challenged the constitutionality of Oregon’s residency requirement in federal court. Rather than defend its law, Oregon settled the case with a promise to eliminate the requirement, thus making MAiD available to patients anywhere in the USA or the world. In this article, we discuss the lawsuit and its settlement.

Pope explains the crux of the Gideonse v. Brown case:

Dr. Gideonse claimed that the residency requirement “prevents him from providing his non-resident patients with care consistent with his best medical judgment at one of the most important moments in their lives.” He also noted that MAiD was “the only medical procedure in [his] day to day practice where a patient’s lack of Oregon residency status categorically denies the otherwise appropriate care he can provide them.

Pope further explained that Gideonse argued that Oregon's assisted suicide law residency requirement violated the federal constitution in two ways. First that it prevented Gideonse from providing medical care to non-residents but secondly that it restricted interstate commerce. The crux of the issue is the question of whether or not assisted suicide is a medical treatment.

I contend that assisted suicide is not a medical act. Assisting a suicide offers no medical benefit and it doesn't require a medical practitioner to participate, even though the Oregon law requires physicians to participate.

Pope then explains the response of the Oregon Health Authority.

Rather than respond to the merits of these claims, surprisingly on March 28, 2022, the state of Oregon settled for reasons that have not been reported. The state agreed to “not apply or otherwise enforce the residency requirement in the Act” and that at the next regular legislative session, the Oregon Health Authority will submit a “legislative concept that would repeal the residency requirement.”

Pope then mentions, as I reported, that a similar case was launched on August 26, 2022 challenging Vermont's assisted suicide residency requirement.

Pope continues his article by explaining that even though the State of Oregon has made assisted suicide available to out-of-state persons the issue is not settled. He questions whether states that prohibit assisted suicide might restrict residents from receiving information about assisted suicide or prohibit referrals for assisted suicide. Pope wrote:

These states might respond either by using existing criminal prohibitions on assisted suicide to prosecute or by otherwise prohibiting instate activities related to MAiD such as helping the patient travel to Oregon or helping prepare the medications for ingestion upon return from Oregon. States might also prohibit referrals for MAiD or even providing of information about this option.

Pope concludes his article by suggesting that the Supreme Court will need to decide the issue.

I am convinced that the issue hinges on the question of whether or not assisted suicide is a medical treatment. Even if the State of Oregon defines assisted suicide as medical care, that does not mean that other states will define assisted suicide as medical care. If it is not medical care then doctors do not have to inform or refer their patients for assisted suicide in Oregon.

What about conscience rights? 

Assisted suicide is prohibited in most states because it constitutes an act to intentionally cause the death of another person. It is about killing another person. Whether it is legal or not, no one should be forced to participate in killing another person.

More articles on this topic:

• Oregon extends assisted suicide nationally by eliminating residency requirement (Link).
• Connecticut woman seeks to die by assisted suicide in Vermont (Link).

Canada Legalizes Assisted Death for the Mentally Ill; Doctors Call the Law “Unethical” and “Coercive.”

By Judith Robinson

Patients in Canada can legally request a medically assisted death for conditions such as depression, bipolar disorder, personality disorder, schizophrenia, PTSD or any other mental affliction under the new Bill C-7. Almost 1500 of the nation’s publicly funded psychiatrists, paediatrians, medical professors and general practitioners have joined an organization to fight the government’s horrific cost-cutting measure.

While Canada has been criticized for neglecting its elderly, through offering inadequate old-age pensions, shoddy long-term care facilities and negligent health care, an even more disturbing trend has recently emerged.

In March of 2021, Bill C-7 passed making it legal for mentally ill adult and adolescent patients to request a medically assisted suicide. The government is currently discussing making it possible for parents and guardians to request an assisted death for children they feel unable or unprepared to care for. A mother in Quebec has already requested an assisted death for her four-year-old with severe disabilities. Some politicians she met with and are sympathetic to her cause.

Medical professionals state they are being pressured to promote assisted death because suicide is cheaper than providing care under Canada’s publically funded medical system. A group of 1,490 Canadian doctors, including medical professors and specialists, calling themselves Physicians Together with Vulnerable Canadians, have publicly expressed their concerns about the situation on their website:

“Medicine… has been transformed into a technical occupation that allows physicians to deliberately end the lives of their suffering patients. Forced participation in arranging and facilitating euthanasia and assisted suicide is now required by certain regulatory colleges…The shock of a sudden illness, or an accident resulting in disability, can lead patients into feelings of anger, depression, and guilt for requiring care – emotions that, with proper support and attention, can resolve over time. The care and encouragement shown by physicians may be the most powerful force in overcoming despair and providing hope. Unfortunately, patients can no longer unconditionally trust their medical professional to advocate for their life when they are at their weakest and most vulnerable. Suddenly, a lethal injection becomes part of a repertoire of interventions offered to end their pain and suffering.”

When Canada passed its first euthanasia law in 2016, the high court ruled that only competent adults suffering from a “grievous and irremediable” medical condition had a right to receive a lethal injection. There were safeguards in place such as a 10-day waiting period to allow the patient time to change their mind and there was an. onus on the physician to provide alternative treatments to euthanasia to alleviate pain and suffering — such as government-funded palliative care programs.

Under the provisions of Bill C-7 patients could request and receive a lethal injection within the same day without ever having been offered any other treatment options. “MAID (medical assistance in dying) has been deemed an essential service under the Canada Health Act and palliative care has not,” the signatory doctors stated. As of March 2023, a Canadian citizen “whose sole underlying condition is depression, bipolar disorder, personality disorder, schizophrenia, PTSD or any other mental affliction” can request a medically assisted suicide if two medical professionals agree.

Psychiatrist Dr. Grainne Neilson, past president of the Canadian Psychiatric Association is struggling “to conclude, with any certainty or confidence, that a mental illness has no prospect of ever improving.” Neilson said psychiatrists will be looking for “a robust, eligibility assessment process” before they will be willing to consider authorizing MAID for their patients. Psychiatrists will want to know that “standard treatments have been offered, attempted and failed, with no other reasonable alternatives.”

Only 28 percent of physicians recently surveyed by the Ontario Medical Association said that MAID should be permitted with sole mental illness as an underlying condition and only 12 per cent said they would support it for their own patients.

“Whether children and adolescents can have legal access to MAID is a complex question that has yet to be fully considered and adjudicated by Canadian society, in Parliament and through courts of law,” according to the Canadian Paediatric Society.

In a paper entitled Medical Assistance in Dying: A Paediatric Perspective principal author Dawn Davies wrote that “governments at every level develop policies and procedures to safeguard young people from possible risks, harms or abuses of MAID, given their unique vulnerabilities.”

Dr. Ramona Coelho, a family physician to marginalized communities and a founding member of Physicians Together with Vulnerable Canadians said that The Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying is currently considering MAID for children. She adds:

“In an increasing number of reported cases, MAID is taking the place of medical treatment and government assistance for those with social, economic and psychiatric issues… How can we keep MAID from being used as a tool to absolve governments of their obligation to provide for those living in poverty, with disability, or with mental illness their equal rights as citizens to health, economic security, and life? That is the question the Special Joint Committee should be considering. But instead, expanding MAID for children is on the agenda.”

An article in The Spectator UK asserts that Canadian authorities are encouraging doctors to adopt MAID in order to save costs. In an article entitled “Why is Canada Euthanizing its Poor?” the world’s oldest weekly magazine disclosed that:

“The old MAID regime saved $86.9 million per year --- a ‘net cost reduction’, in the sterile words of (a Canadian Parliamentary) report – Bill C-7 would create additional net savings of $62 million per year. Healthcare, in particular for those suffering from chronic conditions, is expensive; but assisted suicide only costs the taxpayer $2,327 per ‘case.’ And, of course, those who have to rely wholly on government-provided Medicare pose a far greater burden on the exchequer than those who have savings or private insurance…. There is already talk of allowing ‘mature minors’ access to euthanasia too – just think of the lifetime savings.”

The situation is so dire that the stoic, penny-pinching former head of the Hollinger Newspaper empire, Conrad Black, stepped into the fray writing a protest column in The National Post:

“When a health-care system is insolvent and inadequate, that fact should be admitted and addressed by comprehensive reforms. Encouraging large numbers of people to consent to die prematurely will neither save the healthcare system nor seriously address the profound philosophical and practical implications of vastly increasing the number of unnatural deaths. I believe that assisted dying is sometimes appropriate and a right of the individual involved. But the ennobling and promotion of a vast increase in the numbers of suicides in the guise of health-care reform is a fraud, a secular and ecclesiastical heresy and, in many cases, arguably a crime.”

Dr. Paul Saba, a physician from Quebec and co-chair of the Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice, stated on his blog, “We need to care for people with cognitive impairments — not euthanize them.” Dr. Saba is asking doctors not to perform euthanasia because it “contravenes the legal and ethical practice of modern medicine.” He said that “the government wants to force doctors to do what is illegal and unethical.”

Dr. Coelho, and her cohorts at Physicians Together with Vulnerable Canadians, wrote:

“Our profession has been coerced into facilitating suicide rather than preventing it, for ever-increasing numbers of citizens. We watch in utter dismay and horror at how the nature of our medical profession has been so quickly destroyed by the creation of misguided laws. We, the undersigned, declare that the passage of Bill C-7, if left unchecked, will contribute to the destruction of much more than our medical profession, but fundamentally, of a Canadian society that genuinely values and cares for its most vulnerable members. Canadians deserve better.”

More articles on this topic:

• Canada has become a world leader in euthanasia (Link).
• Toronto Star: Canada is going to far with MAiD (Link).
• Why did they kill my brother (Link).
• How poverty not pain is driving Canadians to seek euthanasia (Link).

Brussels Symposium (November 16): Euthanasia and assisted suicide world-wide

Attend the Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Worldwide at the European Parliament in Brussels on Wednesday November 16 from (9:30 am to 4:30 pm). 

No cost to attend. (Registration link)

Watch online at no cost (Live link). The link will be live during the Symposium (Brussels time).

Schedule: 

9:30-10:00 Registration (Registration link)

10:00-10:10 Welcome

10:10-10:30 Comparing the euthanasia regimes Internationally
Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Canada

10:30-10:50 Euthanasia and the care professional
Dr. Manuel Martinez-Selles; President of the Spanish College of Physicians

10:50-11:10 The secular case against assisted suicide.
Prof. Kevin Yuill; professor of history at the University of Sunderland, England

11:10-11:30 Coffee break

11:30-11:50 A new holistic-evolutive approach to pediatric palliative care.
Carlo Belleini. Associate Professor of Pediatrics, University of Siena.

11:50-12:00 Care for children with life-threatening illness and their families in children hospices. Helmund Geuking, Member of the European Parliament (Group of the European People's Party (Familien-Partei Deutschlands). Online contribution

12:00-12:10 Considerations regarding euthanasia and palliative care.
Bert-Jan Ruissen, Member of the European Parliament (European Conservatives and Reformists Group). Online contribution.

12:10-12:30 Euthanasia in Belgium; How the slippery slope is turning into reality.
Dr. Leopold van Bellingen, lawyer at the European Institute of Bioethics.

12:30-12:50 Legalizing Euthanasia: What we can learn from the Netherlands: a case study of a slippery slope
Leo van Doesburg, Director for European Affairs for the European Christian Political Movement (ECPM)

12:50-13:10 Euthanasia law and practical guidelines and protocols.
Tista Bobbink-Kaper, President of the Dutch association of lawyers defending life. (JPV).

13:10-13:40 Panel discussion with speakers

13:40-15:00 Lunch

15:00-15:20 A doctor’s personal experience who opposes euthanasia
Dr Paul Saba, family physician in Canada and founder of the Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice (Quebec, Canada)

15:20-15:40 Assisted suicide in America. Catherine Glenn Foster.

15:40-16: 10 Panel discussion with the speakers

16:05- 16:35 General Conclusions

Watch online at no cost (Live link).

Canadian man claims that he was pressured to request euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Michael Kaplan wrote and indepth article that was published in the New York Post concerning Roger Foley, a Canadian man who was pushed to ask for an assisted death while being denied the care that he needed to live. Kaplan also researched the 2019 death of Alan Nichols, who died by euthanasia even though he was only depressed.

Kaplan reports on the Roger Foley case:

“I’ve been pressured to do an assisted suicide,” he told The Post, alleging this happened with caretakers at Victoria Hospital, a primarily government-funded center in London, Ontario.

“They asked if I want an assisted death. I don’t. I was told that I would be charged $1,800 per day [for hospital care]. I have $2 million worth of bills. Nurses here told me that I should end my life. That shocked me.”

Foley’s claims to The Post echo his allegations in a lawsuit filed against Victoria Hospital Health Services Centre, among others, in which he claims that healthcare workers have pushed him to end his life.

Foley was pressured to die and he was further pressured by a collection agency. Kaplan states:

“Mr. Foley was told by hospital staff that he had stayed at the hospital for too long and if he did not receive self-directed funding [from local agencies, covering home care], he should apply for assisted death as an option,” the lawsuit claims.

It goes on to accuse the defendants of “sending a collection agency after [Foley] to pressure him into a medically assisted death,” adding that “defendants have violated [Foley’s] rights and freedom.”

Alan (left) with his brother Gary

Kaplan then looks into the death of Alan Nichols.

The medically assisted suicide of Alan Nichols in 2019 has been held up as an example. The 61-year-old was depressive and reportedly suicidal. Canadian law requires patients can only legally undergo medically-assisted suicide if they suffer from a physical — not mental — ailment. Nichols, it is reported in an article by Associated Press, listed hearing loss as his reason for euthanasia. Relatives maintain that hospital employees helped him to put in the request.

“He didn’t have a life-threatening disease,” his brother Gary Nichols told CTV news. “I didn’t think he had a sound mind at all.”

Kaplan also reports that Foley claims in his lawsuit that the hospital denied him food and fluid.

The lawsuit references “the defendants denying him food and water, and failing to provide him with the necessities of life and endangering his life [by] making him critically acidotic [a condition in which there is too much acid in bodily fluids].”

Kaplan concludes the article with Foley stating:

Said Foley: “There is pressure on [disabled] people who should be treated equally and celebrated for their strength and diversity and difference.

“Society deems us better off dead. We have to justify being alive and [to pro-euthanasia contingents] our lives don’t matter.”

Previous articles related to Roger Foley:

• Abandoning people: Canada's broadening euthanasia law (Link). 
• Canada is getting comfortable with killing people with disabilities (Link).
• People with disabilities oppose Bill C-7 expansion of euthanasia (Link).
  

Minnesota End-of-Life Options Act would decriminalize assisted suicide and is a dangerous road-map for future medical practice

Gordon Friesen
EPC President

As has been demonstrated in Canada, the most virulent strain of assisted death is that which presents itself as standard medical care. Unfortunately, the so called End-of-Life Options Act, now under consideration in Minnesota draws deeply from that source. (Link to the End-of-Life Options Act).

First, the name itself "end-of-life option" is apparently chosen to create obligations and permissions based on the medical "Standard of Care" as laid out in the Minnesota Patients Bill of Rights. For according to the text of this Standard, informed patient consent requires that doctors make their patients aware of alternative "options".

It is therefore strongly suggested (were this bill passed), that all doctors would have an ethical obligation to mention the possibility of assisted suicide every time they prescribe any other treatment (for terminal patients).

Indeed, if the Minnesota legislator had chosen to proceed with a firm declaration of assisted death as "medical care" there is no question but that all doctors and facilities (as in Canada) would be obliged to provide it. It is, however, plainly stipulated in the bill that no one (and no facility) is obliged to provide fulfillment (or any information) regarding the "Option". Moreover, this exemption is not provided (again as in Canada) on the grounds of any particular "right of conscience". The presumption therefore exists that participation and information regarding assisted death may be simply ruled out by professionals and service providers on the grounds of their own medical judgment. And hence: that no true medical obligation is claimed.

A second stab at the establishment of an assumed medical status, lies in the term "medical aid in dying", itself, defined to mean the actualization of said "option" through evaluation of request, determination of eligibility, and prescription of a lethal potion. Apparently we are thus invited to assume that allowing doctors to employ their special knowledge and privileges (for any other purpose whatsoever) automatically justifies the addition of that crucial adjective "medical".

However, we would do well to remember that the most important of a doctor's tasks lies precisely in deciding what is (or is not) medically appropriate for the patient. And since the definition of "medical aid in dying" speaks only of determining "eligibility" (with regards to legal criteria provided by the legislator) there is no hint of any such medical judgment.

Therefore, while the prescribing doctor may indeed be acting as an expert medical technician, he is nonetheless effectively employed as a blunt instrument, in response to the suicidal wish of the qualified patient. He (or she) is decidedly not making any significant medical judgment or proposition of care. The appellation "medical" is therefore a misnomer.

Much more appropriate, I submit, would be the term "Para-medical aid in dying", chosen to indicate a status perhaps closely related to the medical art (through the use of a common technical expertise in the manipulation of dangerous substances) but at the same time fundamentally distinct. (see: para- Med terms 'P': suffixes/prefixes in medical terminology)

The other usual justification of assisted death --non-medical this time-- comes from a direct appeal to some sort of "right-to-die".

If for instance, it were directly proclaimed that the State of Minnesota supports and guarantees a right for all persons (or at least for all terminally ill persons) to have access to assisted death (as the Canadian Province of Quebec has so engaged its guarantee) then there would be a clear duty for doctors (or some other mandated group) to provide that access. However, once again, since any forced individual or collective mandate is explicitly ruled out in the Bill: that justification for imposing obligations (or according permissions) can not be sustained either.

In conclusion, the Minnesota "bill for an act relating to health; establishing an end-of-life option for terminally ill adults" is built like a spider's web of suggestion and inference. Far beyond its immediate scope, a great conceptual space is apparently occupied, and sweeping logical consequences for future policy are claimed. However, the persuasive power of this conceptual net depends upon the observer failing to notice that it is not actually anchored in either of its corners.

For the Minnesota bill does not actually define the "end-of-life option" as medical care, nor does it establish a true "right-to-die", even for those who are eligible.

Hopefully, those opposed to assisted death will find enough support to defeat this Bill. But if that be so, there must also logically be enough support to previously strip out the dangerously tendentious medical verbiage with which it is laden. For one can not assume that such a Bill will never pass. And in that perspective, it is now, and only now, that we have the leisure of clearly defining future limits to logic and intention.

Gordon Friesen, November 10, 2022

Opposing assisted suicide after near-fatal motorcycle accident

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Bill Fertig

A guest column by Bill Fertig that was published in the Virginian Pilot on October 22 explains that a near-fatal motorcycle accident in 1999 has led to Fertig opposing assisted suicide. Fertig wrote:

My view of assisted suicide is colored by my near-fatal motorcycle accident in 1999. As I awoke from a medically induced coma, I soon realized that the accident had left me with complete paraplegia (T-7). Until then, I lay unconscious and oblivious in a trauma center. I briefly contemplated the emotional pull of life versus death. Fortunately, I had a strong and supportive extended family who helped me to choose hope to keep going. I still had to relearn everything about my new body and adjust to a manual wheelchair.

Before my injury, on multiple occasions as a police officer, I was assigned to stop a suicide. This also gave me insight. In one case, I was dispatched to the home of a man who had attempted to asphyxiate himself inside his running car and closed garage. Upon entry, I successfully pulled him away from the carbon monoxide and drew him safely outside. He had been depressed, but was lucky. After the intervention, he received mental health treatment and recovered.

I have also personally witnessed the devastating and long-lasting effects of suicide on a victim’s family and friends. Naturally, they wonder why the victim did not seek lifesaving mental health treatment, or during an advanced illness, palliative care and/or hospice.

In my experience, all medical professionals and first responders are routinely trained to save people from committing suicide. Why then, do we, as Americans, not make every effort to dissuade sick patients from taking their lives, and why do we instead euphemistically refer to the tragedy as “medical aid in dying”? Why do many people not call it what it is: suicide? As a society, we never encourage people to choose death by overdose, carbon monoxide or a self-inflicted gunshot. Why is assisted suicide mass-marketed as “medical aid” when it has nothing to do with improving a patient’s health?

In my second career with the Spinal Cord Injury Resource Center, I helped advocate for victims and families — including a Maine man living with chronic spinal cord injury (SCI). Hospital staff there projected their own personal bias onto Chris Dunn, a plumber in his 40s with a severe SCI from a swimming pool accident, who lay stabilized in a critical care unit. Hospital administrators prejudged Dunn as having slim prospects for quality of life and were prepared to let him die without rehabilitation efforts. Dunn expressed his will to live and requested every opportunity for rehabilitation. With our help, he lived, and once weaned from a ventilator during rehabilitation, returned home to live with his family.

Depression can be successfully treated. The effects of chronic injuries can be mitigated through quality rehabilitation. Taking time to consider all options can be a great healer. Even “irreversible medical decline” can be alleviated with palliative or hospice care.

As an SCI survivor, I know the healing power of patience. My goal is to help others see their tremendous value — regardless of circumstances — and ensure they can access the lifesaving treatment they deserve.

The insurance industry should never be allowed to prescribe assisted suicide as a cheap substitute for providing lifesaving care. If you agree that every patient should have access to lifesaving treatment, urge your legislators to oppose assisted suicide. For more information, contact NoSuicideVA@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Bill Fertig of Virginia Beach is the retired director of the Spinal Cord Injury Resource Center of the United Spinal Association. Prior to his motorcycle accident, he was a 25-year member of a Pennsylvania police department.

The assisted suicide lobby has introduced bills to legalize assisted suicide in Virginia.

New Zealand wants to follow Canada by removing terminal illness requirement from euthanasia law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

New Zealand protest

David Seymour, the leader of the ACT party and the MP who sponsored New Zealand's euthanasia law is calling for the law to be broadened.

Isaac Davison reported for the New Zealand Herald on November 6 that Seymour wants the 6 month terminal illness prognosis in the law removed. He indicated that he only included the terminal illness requirement to get support for euthanasia from the other political parties. Davison reported.

Assisted dying law in New Zealand should be relaxed to remove a requirement that a patient has only six months to live, the law’s architect says....

Seymour said he agreed to the six-month requirement to gain the support of the Green Party to pass the bill.

Davison points out that Seymour's original bill did not include a terminal illness requirement.

Seymour’s original bill would have allowed non-terminal patients with “grievous and irremediable conditions” to get access to voluntary euthanasia.

Some groups felt that definition was too broad, and raised concerns it could make assisted dying available to disabled people or mental health patients.

The amended law, which was voted on in a public referendum, made it explicit that applicants could not get access to assisted dying on the basis of disability or mental illness alone.

Not enough killing. 

Seymour seems concerned that too many euthanasia applications were turned down. Davison reported:

Voluntary euthanasia was legalised exactly a year ago, and so far 214 patients had an assisted death. In all, 596 people have applied and 294 people have been deemed eligible.

A total of 120 people were turned down because they were not eligible.

Seymour noted that a third of the ineligible patients were declined because they didn’t meet the criteria of having a terminal illness likely to end their lives within six months.

Seymour argued that the criteria of the New Zealand euthanasia law should be broadened after the government reviews the law in 2024.

Since New Zealand legalized euthanasia through a public referendum and since the referendum specifically stated that euthanasia would only be for terminally ill people with a six month prognosis, therefore any changes to the law should only be passed by another referendum.

Webinar: Assisted Suicide and Disability with Melissa Ortiz

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

At our recent EPC-USA Conference in Connecticut, Melissa Ortiz, the Senior Advisor to AbleAmerians, gave an excellent presentation on assisted suicide and disability.

Don't miss the powerful discussion with Melissa Ortiz and Alex Schadenberg on Assisted Suicide and Disability from a policy and personal perspective on Thursday, November 18 at 2 pm (Eastern Time).

You will be able to listen, learn and share.

Register in advance for this meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwocuqsqjkiGNQiMg3nzh_N9kVpCwQzcEvW

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email for joining the meeting. Please keep the email.

Melissa is an experienced researcher and policy analyst who also has personal stories that ground her opposition to assisted suicide and her advocacy for people with disabilities.

US Bill outlaws online Suicide assistance

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

NPR reported on October 9 that the parents of Kristine Jónsson (16) of Ohio and the parents of Ethan McCarthy (17) of West Virginia have sued Amazon based on the suicide deaths of their teenagers.

The article explains that Amazon sold the teenagers suicide powder with the peaceful pill handbook that is written that explains how to ingest the suicide powder.

A recent article by Gabriel J.X. Dance and Megan Twohey titled: Bill Outlawing Online Suicide Assistance Would Open Sites to Liability reports on a bipartisan bill introduced in the House of Representatives, the Stop Online Suicide Assistance Forums Act, comes amid rising concern over suicide rates among young people, and mounting evidence of online dangers.

Bill H.R.9260 is sponsored by Representative Lori Trahan, Democrat of Massachusetts and Co-sponsored by Katie Porter, Democrat of California, and Republicans Mike Carey of Ohio and Chris Stewart of Utah.

The article refers to the New York Times investigative report on a suicide website last December:

The bill’s primary sponsor cited a Times investigation published last December into a website where members share detailed instructions on how to die and encourage one another to follow through with suicide plans. The investigation identified 45 deaths connected to the site and found hundreds of posts suggesting that the true toll was much higher.

Even as the trail of suicides connected to the site grows longer — The Times has since identified dozens more deaths, including several young teenagers — no one involved has faced legal consequences.

The article reports that Trahan, the bills sponsor, referred to the New York Times findings as “terrifying” and Trahan said that “it motivated us to act.”

The article states that most US states have laws prohibiting assisted suicide but these laws are inconsistent, rarely enforced and don't explicitly address online suicide. The article states:

The new federal bill draws on a Minnesota State Supreme Court ruling, which affirmed that offering suicide instructions in an online exchange was a crime.

Article: Assisted suicide conviction upheld of former Minnesota nurse (Link).

Previous legislation aimed at this issue, the Suzanne Gonzales Suicide Prevention Act, first proposed in 2007 and named for a 19-year-old who had killed herself after receiving instruction on the internet, would also have made online assistance of suicide a federal crime. It was introduced several times but never received a vote.

H.R. 9260 states:

“(a) In general.—Whoever uses mail or interstate communication to intentionally assist another individual in taking that individual’s own life, and death results, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

“(b) Limitation.—Any action taken in accordance with State laws governing physician-assisted end of life shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

Since none of the Amerian state assisted suicide laws specifically permit online suicide assistance, therefore Section (b) is currently unnecessary, nonetheless, this bill prohibits online suicide assistance without over-reaching into the state jurisdiction.

Sharon Luft, the mother of Matthew, who died by suicide last year supports the bill. The article states:

“It’s at least one important step. We need to get this online help taken down,” said Sharon Luft, whose 17-year-old son Matthew killed himself last year less than a month after joining the site.

When Matthew inquired about a specific method, another member was quick to reply with a link to detailed instructions on how to use it to die. He later sought and received more detailed advice to make sure his efforts would work. At one point, he wondered if the method was working and asked if he should keep going. Another member responded, “If you want the attempt to be a success, then yes.”

“Websites that encourage suicide and offer instructions are harmful, particularly to youth and young adults,” said Robert Gebbia, the chief executive of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

Preventing online suicide assistance is an important step towards protecting people who are living with suicidal ideation. Matthew (17), Kristine (16), and Ethan (17) are there of the many people who have died by online suicide assistance.

EPC supports H.R. 9260.

Canadian doctors offer euthanasia before receiving a request.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Many people are wondering why Canada's euthanasia (MAiD) statistics indicate that Canada is quickly becoming the leading euthanasia country. The Netherlands and Belgium legalized euthanasia in 2002 and have experienced a steady growth in euthanasia deaths while Canada legalized euthanasia in 2016 and almost surpassed those countries.

Canada's 2021 euthanasia report indicated that there were 10,064 reported euthanasia deaths in 2021 representing 3.3% of all deaths, which was up from 2.5% in 2020. The data indicates a big difference in the percentage of euthanasia deaths between provinces with euthanasia representing 4.8% of all deaths in British Columbia and 4.7% of all deaths in Quebec.

Article: Canada releases 2021 euthanasia report. More than 10,000 reported deaths (Link).

Sharon Kirkey wrote an article for the National Post on November 2 that partially explains why euthanasia deaths have increased so quickly in Canada. Kirkey reports that unlike other jurisdictions, doctors in Canada are introducing the option of euthanasia rather than waiting for patients to bring it up. Kirkey wrote:

In most jurisdictions in the world with legalized euthanasia, doctors are explicitly prohibited, or strongly discouraged from raising assisted dying with a patient.

The request must come from the person.

But a guidance document produced by Canada’s providers of medically assisted death states that doctors have a professional obligation to bring up MAID as an option, when it’s “medically relevant” and the person is likely eligible, as part of the informed consent process.

University of Toronto ethicist, Kerry Bowman tells Kirkey that this is an ethical problem. Kirkey reports:

But some ethicists argue that introducing death as a “treatment option,” without the person suggesting it first, is seriously problematic, especially within the expanding realm of MAID, and that people could be unduly influenced to choose to have their life intentionally ended, given the power dynamics of the doctor-patient relationship.

“Some people, no matter how well-handled your conversation, may infer that it’s essentially a suggestion,” said University of Toronto bioethicist Kerry Bowman.

“They would also definitely infer that they have the strong potential to meet eligibility criteria, or you wouldn’t be offering it.”

Kirkey explains that The Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers (CAMAP) published a euthanasia guide in 2019 that opened the issue of doctors offering euthanasia rather than waiting for a patient request. CAMAP’s vice president, Dr. Konia Trouton told Kirkey:

Canada’s assisted dying law states that no health-care professional commits an offence “if they provide information to a person on the lawful provision of medical assistance in dying.” Canada’s MAID providers and assessors said that there is also no provision in the law that prohibits clinicians from initiating the discussion and raising the possibility of MAID.

While it is absolutely illegal to counsel someone to die by suicide, to “counsel,” from a doctor-patient perspective, means to “inform and discuss,” the group’s guidance reads.

“The clinical perspective of the meaning of the word ‘counsel’ has no bearing on the legal meaning.”

Bowman commented on the Canadian Veteran with PTSD who was told to die by euthanasia. Kirkey reports:

The case of a Veterans Affairs caseworker who reportedly suggested to a combat veteran with PTSD that MAID was a better option than “blowing your brains out against the wall” drew outrage.

“We don’t know how that conversation played out,” Bowman said. “But I suspect what is happening across the country is that some people are bringing it up regularly and some people aren’t.”

Bowman is also concerned about doctors offering euthanasia to a patient who is struggling to pay their rent. Kirkey writes:

The expansion of MAID to those not at imminent risk of dying adds another layer of complexity and debate, he said. “I also see it as very problematic when we bring (MAID) up to people who can’t pay the rent, or people who are living with disability who don’t have adequate access to the things that they need,” Bowman said.

Trudo Lemmens

Trudo Lemmens, a professor of health law and policy at the University of Toronto told Kirkey that he is concerned about depressed people who are being offered euthanasia. Kirkey reports:

“You have a person who is severely depressed where the nature of the illness is often accompanied by a desire to die. The person takes a step to go and see a mental health counsellor to get help, and is being told, as part of the informed consent procedure, we can have treatment a, b, c or MAID.”

In Canada, in contrast to just about all other jurisdictions, MAID is no longer seen as an exceptional procedure, Lemmens said.

“The fact that this has been presented as, ‘This has to be on the table because it’s part of informed consent,’ reflects, overall, an attitude that has developed in the Canadian context,” he said. “It’s being sold as a normal medical practice.”

Lemmens told Kirkey that doctors who introduce the topic of euthanasia to patients is unique to Canada. Kirkey reports:

In New Zealand and Victoria, Australia, two jurisdictions where assisted dying for the terminally ill was recently legalized, doctors are explicitly prohibited from bringing it up. While it’s not explicitly prohibited in Belgium and the Netherlands, “it is generally not considered appropriate,” Leemens said, especially outside the end-of-life context.

“The emphasis is on how the request must come from the patient.”

As I stated at the beginning of the article, one of the reasons that euthanasia in Canada has expanded so quickly is that doctors are introducing the topic of MAiD and not waiting for a patient to request it.

More articles on this topic: 

• Canada releases 2021 euthanasia report. More than 10,000 reported deaths (Link).
• Canadian veteran who was urged to seek (MAiD) euthanasia was not the only one (Link).
• Another case of euthanasia for disability and poverty (Link).