Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care offers great hope to Canadians.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition 

A great gift was given to Canada yesterday. The Report of the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care was released yesterday in Ottawa. The report titled: Not to be Forgotten: Care of Vulnerable Canadians, focusses on improving palliative care for all Canadians, suicide prevention strategies and protecting people from elder abuse.

The Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care is an all-party committee that grew out of a common goal of identifying concrete ways to improve the care and protection for all Canadians when they are experiencing difficult circumstances.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) stated in our media release that we endorsed the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care. Our legal counsel, Hugh Scher, stated:

"Implementation of the recommendations of this Parliamentary report should eliminate any further call for legalized assisted suicide or euthanasia in Canada by vastly improving care for every Canadian, especially those who are vulnerable."

At the press conference, in Ottawa, for the release of the report, Joe Comartin (NDP) - Windsor Riverside, Harold Albrecht (CPC) - Kitchener Conestoga, and Frank Valeriote (Lib) - Guelph, spoke on the different areas within the report.

Joe Comartin

Joe Comartin spoke on the palliative care recommendations in the report. He stated that only 16 - 30% of Canadians have access to palliative care. Palliative care services are a patch-work quilt with varying levels of care within every region. Even within Toronto there are regional disparities of access to palliative care.

Joe Comartin emphasized the need for: 
* a new palliative care secretariet, 
* the need to improve chronic care for people who live with pain and 
* he emphasized the need for greater flexibility in the provision of compassionate care benefits,
* the importance of building a greater infrastructure of local palliative care services to enable people to receive care and support in their own communities.

Harold Albrecht

Harold Albrecht spoke about the suicide prevention section within the report. He explained how suicide is almost always preventable but that the resources, information and support is simply not available in Canada. Canada does not have a national suicide prevention strategy, even though the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention has developed a national strategy for suicide prevention, the resources to implement the strategy have not been provided.

Harold Albrecht emphasized that * a coordinating body would be required to implement a National Suicide Prevention Strategy.


Frank Valeriote spoke on the recommendations related to elder abuse. He spoke about the fact that 4 - 10% of elders experience abuse and some recent studies are suggesting that the rate of elder abuse may be as high as 20%. Most elder abuse is carried out by care-givers, family members and friends. The reason elder abuse remains under-reported is the fact that the person is often dependent on the abuser.

Frank Valeriote

Frank Valeriote emphasized the need for * an elder abuse awareness and prevention office, * an elder abuse prevention strategy that would focus on prevention and intervention.

Rene Ouimet from the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention (CASP) spoke next about the progress that is being made towards implementing a  suicide prevention blueprint. She stated that CASP supports the recommendations in the report.

Dan Demers from the Canadian Cancer Society stated that they supported the recommendations within the report. He spoke about how some patients are still suffering needlessly. He emphasized that people, at the end of life, are vulnerable and must not be abandoned. He decried the fact that less than 30% of Canadians have access to excellent palliative care.

Jean Guy St. Gelais from the Canadian Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse spoke next. He supported the need for an elder abuse prevention strategy and thanked the committee for the report.

Dr John Haggie

The final speaker was Dr John Haggie who is the current President of the Canadian Medical Association. He stated that the improvement in palliative care required urgent attention. He spoke in favour of the emphasis on patient centred care that the report promotes. He suggested that fixing palliative care can be used as a model for transforming health care in Canada.

The media then asked a series of questions.

The first question concerned the fact that many of the areas that the report was concerned with were within provincial jurisdiction. Joe Comartin answered the question by emphasizing the importance of the report being implemented by all levels of government. He then emphasized how some of the recommendations would lead to significant cost savings. He stated that too many people were dying in acute care hospital settings. If there were palliative care placements available, the cost would be significantly less. He also stated that excellent pain management will provide significant savings for the economy. Frank Valeriote then emphasized the need to share information especially to serve the needs of minority communities.

The second question concerned the decriminalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Dr Haggie, the President of the CMA stepped forward and stated that euthanasia is a complex issue but access to good palliative care would change the euthanasia debate. Dr Haggie then stated:

"requests for euthanasia usually reflect a failure to access adequate palliative care." 

Dr. Haggie then stated that Canada needs a national palliative care strategy. We need to transform the medical system with best practises and we need innovation funds to improve care.

The next question concerned the national suicide prevention stragegy. Harold Albrecht spoke about the fact that CASP has developed a blueprint strategy and he stated that government leadership is needed. He then mentioned his private suicide prevention members bill that is before parliament.

It was then stated that the blueprint strategy that was developed by CASP has been implemented in other countries resulting in the lowering of suicide rates in their countries.

Harold Albrecht then mentioned how progress is already occurring. The #10 recommendation in the palliative care section of the report has already been inserted in the current government budget.


EPC would like to thank the 55 MP's who supported the Palliative and Compassionate Care committee. We would like to thank Michele Simson, who was the Liberal co-chair of the committee but was defeated in the last election. We would like to thank George for writing the report.

The first parliamentary debate reveals significant opposition to Bill C-384.

On Friday, October 2, 2009, Bill C-384 -- the private member's bill introduced by Francine Lalonde (BQ) to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada -- received its first hour of debate in the House of Commons.

Parliamentary procedure states that a private member's bill receives two hours of debate before being voted on at second reading. C-384 is tentatively scheduled to receive its second hour of debate on November 16, 2009.

Eight Members of Parliament spoke on C-384. Two spoke in favour - Francine Lalonde (BQ), Serge Cardin - (BQ); six opposed the bill - David Anderson (CPC), Hon John McKay (Lib), Jacques Gourde (CPC), Hon Marlene Jennings (Lib), Joe Comartin (NDP), Paul Szabo (Lib).

Francine Lalonde

Francine Lalonde (BQ) led off the debate, explaining how C-384 would work.

"… it amends the Criminal code so that a medical practitioner does not commit homicide just by helping a person to die with dignity if ... the person is at least 18 years of age, continues to experience severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief or suffers from a terminal illness. The person must have provided a medical practitioner with two written requests more than ten days apart expressly stating the person's free and informed consent to opt to die."

Lalonde then spoke about the experience of legalizing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide in other jurisdictions including the Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon.

Lalonde continued by focusing on the attitude of the Quebec College of Physicians that appears to be considering a change in their position on the issue. She also spoke about recent polls in Quebec that appear to indicate that the majority of Quebecers support her bill.

She then spoke about palliative care and she emphasized that there are cases when palliative care does not adequately relieve a person's suffering. She quoted a palliative care doctor who appears to support euthanasia.

She then challenged the recent article from a group of 100 physicians in Quebec who oppose C-384 and who oppose the possible change in position by the Quebec College of Physicians concerning euthanasia.

David Anderson

David Anderson (CPC) spoke against C-384, making three main points.

His first point was, "… we need to understand that allowing people to die is a far cry from causing their death."

His second point was, "She talked about the fact that choice exists in other countries. While that is true, many of those countries (Switzerland) have developed death tourism, so that people go there to die. That is not in line with what we want either the heritage or the future of this country to be about."

Anderson's final point was, "It is ironic that she claims that an association for palliative care champions euthanasia. Is this not a complete twisting of the commitment that so many palliative care providers across this country believe in? They believe they are doing good work. They do not believe in euthanasia."

Lalonde responded, "It is about determining whether or not we should, by changing the Criminal Code, allow doctors who so wish -- only those who wish to do so -- to medically end the life of someone who wants to die, who has made that choice, who is at the end of life and who is suffering. That is the only question."

Editor's Note: Lalonde admits that the change to the Criminal Code would allow doctors to end the life of someone. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has argued that C-384 is not about a person dying with dignity but rather giving the right to physicians to end a patient's life.

John McKay

John McKay (Lib) made two points.

The first was, "The essential core of this legislation is that it would engage society in the ending of a life. It would engage the doctor and it would engage us as a society."

His second point related to capital punishment. He spoke about how the justice system can make mistakes.

"I would request that the hon. member (Lalonde) respond to the inevitable, the absolute certainty that errors will be made and that therefore she and I and all the rest of us will bear that guilt."

Lalonde responded by speaking about the recent report from Belgium that stated that only people who have requested it and who are suffering are dying by euthanasia.

Jacques Gourde

Jacques Gourde (CPC) spoke against C-384. He was representing the government in his opposition to the bill. He said, "Bill C-384 is too broad in terms of its scope. Bill C-384 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to provide an exemption not only to the offence of assisted suicide, but also to the offence of murder. These amendments would represent a substantial change to the current state of the law on a matter that touches on life and death."

His second point was, "The proposed legalization of medical euthanasia and assisted suicide would not only apply to terminally-ill patients, but also to persons who suffer from severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief. Therefore, under this bill, persons who suffer from depression could request that a doctor help them to commit suicide. They could also request that the doctor carry out the act itself that would cause their death."

His third point was concerning the lack of safeguards. "In this respect, Bill C-384 contains a number of vague and undefined terms that could lead to interpretation problems and, therefore, potentially to misunderstandings or abuses."

"For example, terms such as 'while appearing to be lucid', 'appropriate treatment', 'severe physical or mental pain', 'without any prospect of relief' have the potential to be interpreted very subjectively.'

"Under Bill C-384, the doctor who would assist in a suicide or terminate someone's life would only have to provide a copy of the diagnosis to the coroner after the fact. This bill would give a doctor the authority to terminate life on the apparent consent of the patient."

Gourde's next point was, "I know that other countries have struggled with this difficult issue over the years, both in their legislatures and in the courts. While some countries have amended their laws to permit physician-assisted suicide and/or euthanasia, others have not supported such changes. In any event, regardless of what other countries have done, we have to consider what is right for our society."

He concluded by stating, "I would like to reiterate that I do not support this bill. … It raises a number of significant legal and policy concerns and, in my view, would not adequately protect human life. Bill C-384 would also have a major impact on current medical ethics and practice. Such substantial changes to the law should not be considered without extensive advance consultations."

Marlene Jennings

Marlene Jennings (Lib) spoke against the bill by first reading the letter from the Canadian Medical Association opposing C-384. She then argued that the government and previous governments have not followed through on the research studies that need to be done before Canada consider legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Joe Comartin

Joe Comartin, the NDP Justice Critic, was the next speaker to oppose C-384. His first argument was in relation to palliative care. He stated, "I want to quote from a statement made by Dr. Balfour Mount, whose name I think everybody in the country would recognize as being a leader in palliative care in Canada."

"Mount said he is profoundly against euthanasia because it is simply not needed …."

"What he was saying is that it is not needed in the kind of care he is able to provide and that he has provided for the better part of 30 years, as is the case in my community."

"We need to look at our system right now. … At this point, approximately 20% of our population is covered by meaningful palliative care, hospice and a home care system. That is all we have in the country. Then there is another 15% or maybe 17% who are covered by partial assistance at the end of life."

"However, that is what it is about. It is about providing that system, and we are not doing it."

Comartin then spoke against the very concept of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide. "I know there are disputes over this, but it is the analysis that I have brought to bear, and I think it is an accurate one. In spite of how we build that system, and I say that about the legislation my colleague has brought here, that is not what actually happens. Should we make the mistake of passing this kind of legislation, we are in effect giving our approval to doctors who are willing to do this, to family members who want it and to those individuals who are still capable of making a decision. They will simply figure out ways of working around the legislation."

He concluded by saying, "I think we do need a fuller debate on this, but not in this context. It has to be in the context of people living out their natural lives, and what we, as a society and legislators, have to do to ensure that can happen."

Editor's Note: In other words, Comartin says that we need to discuss how people live out their natural life before we discuss how they die.

Serge Cardin

The next speaker was Serge Cardin BQ who supported C-384. He spoke about suffering and the death of his father. He then challenged people who oppose euthanasia based on a faith perspective, by stating, "I can say that in ancient times, the Greeks and the Romans were able to bring the issue of suicide out into the open and ensure that it was part of public discourse and debate. That was in ancient times. They decided to discuss it honestly and openly, to debate the matter. Intolerance of suicide began to take root in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and was heightened under the influence of Christianity. Naturally we do not wish to go against people's beliefs."

Cardin warned the Members of Parliament that if they didn't deal with the issue, more cases would go before the courts, leading to a judicial decision.

He concluded by stating, "I am not trying to convince the members to say yes so that this bill becomes law tomorrow morning. What I am trying to do is convince them to consider, discuss, debate, and improve this bill. In the end, it is not up to us to choose. It is up to the person to say lucidly that, in the event something should happen, they want to have control over their life and, ideally, their death as well.

Editor's Note: Cardin's concluding remarks follow the same point of view of the euthanasia lobby in Canada who have been asking Members of Parliament to vote in favour of C-384 in order to allow it to receive a national debate.

Paul Szabo

The final speech on C-384 was by Paul Szabo (Lib) who spoke against the bill, making two key points.

His first point was related to the nine years he served on the board of the Mississauga hospital. "The issues of informed consent and mental competency, whether the person had all the medical information, or were aware of all the options or if there was coercion by family members or friends, are important issues to take into consideration."

His second point was about what euthanasia actually is. "The bill goes under the moniker of right to die with dignity, but the amendment to the Criminal Code would give a person the right to terminate a life before natural death. It would not give the right to die with dignity to someone. It would give the right of someone to take a life. That is a subtle difference."

He concluded by saying, "I hope as many members as possible will get an opportunity to address this. Palliative care workers are concerned about this. Organizations and hospices are doing their very best to give the best possible care in terrible situations. Disabled in our society are obviously concerned about whether their lives are at risk because someone decides they do not live in dignity."

Editor's Note: The first hour of debate for C-384 went very well. For us to strongly defeat the bill we will need more supporters to write letters, send post-cards, or meet with their MP. Please continue the work.

Motion 388 receives its first hour of debate

Are Internet Suicide Predators protected by the language of the law?

Nadia Kajouji

Harold Albrecht MP introduced Motion 388 to encourage the government to clarify Section 241 of the Criminal Code in order to ensure that the law applies to Internet suicide predators.

In March 2008, Nadia Kajouji killed herself after being encouraged and counseled by William Melchert-Dinkel, a licensed practical nurse in Minnesota.

In response to a plea by Kajouji's mother, Albrecht introduced M388 to clarify the assisted suicide law and to address the crime of online suicide counseling, which has led to Nadia and other young people committing suicide after being urged by predators via the Internet.

In his speech at the House of Commons, Albrecht presented several key points.

Nadia's mother

His first point was concerning the role of Section 241 of the Criminal Code. He stated, "Our society has long recognized that vulnerable people require the protection of the law. That is the purpose behind Section 241 of the Criminal Code which makes it illegal to counsel someone to commit suicide."

He then spoke about the concerns related to depression and the vulnerable person. He stated, "Each of us in this chamber has gone through periods of discouragement and perhaps depression, or at least we have family members and friends who struggle with depression and mental health issues. For some people these downtimes might be a fleeting emotion that lasts only for a few hours or days. For others, it may drag on for weeks, months or even years. In these times of feeling overwhelmed, discouraged or depressed, many have had the thought of ending it all in order to avoid the ongoing pain."

Harold Albrecht

Albrecht then explained Nadia's story. "In March 2008 in Ottawa, Nadia, a Carleton University student, was going through a period of depression when an Internet predator encouraged her to take her life. … The online friend turned out to be a 46-year-old licensed practical male nurse from Minnesota who allegedly lurked as a predator in online chat rooms. He also admitted to Minnesota police that he coaxed at least five different people to commit suicide using the Internet."

Albrecht then quoted Nadia's mother who stated, "One thing that has now been brought to light is that this predator is not alone. There are many more just like him out there. And when things go wrong in our lives, or in the lives of the people we love, they'll be out there hunting, hunting for the opportune moment."

Albrecht quoted Nadia's mother further by stating, "Stories like this make it necessary to clarify our laws. In our Internet age, we need to make it clear that the use of technology where one might presume to hide behind the anonymity of the Internet is not a defense against prosecution for very serious criminal offenses."

Albrecht concluded his speech by saying, "My concern is for vulnerable Canadians. The changes called for in M388 are needed in order to provide greater protection to those who are at a very vulnerable point in their lives. Predators must be stopped before they repeat their crime. Their destructive deeds will not be tolerated and predators who choose to ignore the deterrent message need to know that they will face severe consequences."

Serge Menard

Serge Ménard (BQ) spoke next, stating that the Bloc supports M388. But he questioned the need for the motion, noting that Section 241 is written in a broad manner.

Albrecht responded by stating that Melchert-Dinkel has not been charged by Canadian authorities and that it is important to give a clear message as a deterrent to those who counsel suicide over the Internet.

Ménard then continued by stating that suicide is the second leading cause of death in Quebec. He then stated, "We believe that it is important to ensure that counselling or aiding and abetting suicide is an offence, no matter the means used - including telecommunications, the Internet or a computer system."

Alex's Note: This comment is especially interesting considering the fact that the Bloc Québecois supports Bill C-384 that would essentially eliminate the protections in Section 241 of the Criminal Code.

Rod Bruinooge

Rod Bruinooge (CPC) spoke in favour of M388 and asked if the motion would act as a push-back to groups attempting to normalize suicide.

Albrecht responded that M388 is only concerned with suicide predators who are taking advantage of vulnerable people, especially youth.

Alan Tonks (Lib) spoke in favour of M388 and expressed his concerns related to the rate of suicide and attempted suicide among youth in Canada.

Joe Comartin

Joe Comartin (NDP) was next to speak in favour of M388. Comartin was clear in his support by stating, "It is quite appropriate and very timely that this motion is before the House. I believe the government, the Department of Justice in particular, needs to be looking into this area and seeing if there are ways that we can tighten up either under the Criminal Code or in other areas to, as much as possible, prevent this type of predatory activity."

Chris Warkentin (CPC) spoke in favour of M388, but emphasized the importance of maintaining a broad interpretation of Section 241 of the Criminal Code.

Motion 388 is tentatively scheduled to receive its second hour of debate on November 5, 2009. To circulate a petition in support of Motion 388, contact Harold Albrechts office at: AlbreH@parl.gc.ca

Euthanasia bill will be defeated

Deborah Gyapong has written an excellent article about Bill C-384 and the reactions of members of parliament. The article is below my comments and it is well worth reading.

I am convinced that we are going to defeat Bill C-384. Since the wind is in our sails that doesn't mean that we should rest, but rather it means that we need to turn up the heat.

I am incredibly pleased with the number of people who have contacted their members of parliament and that work needs to continue, but I am concerned about how few letters have been written to newspapers across Canada.

Please consider writing a letter to your local newspaper. Letters to the editor are often read and many times other readers will respond to those letters.

When writing a letter to the editor you need to try to tell a personal story. This is an important approach because many people are inclined to softly support euthanasia because they fear dying in pain or feeling lonely and abandoned in their final years or days of life. Personal stories will often influence a large number of people who currently fear death, making them understand how legalizing euthanasia is in fact a threat to their life or the life of a friend or a family member.

The contact information for newspapers across Canada can be found at: http://www.altstuff.com/newspapr.htm
If we can continue to speak to our members of parliament and begin to write articles in our newspapers we will be able to effect the culture and create a greater long-term opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide

The article by Deborah Gyapong:
Opponents say few MPs back legalization of assisted suicide

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2342782/posts
Deborah Gyapong - Sept 17, 2009

OTTAWA - Opponents of assisted-suicide and euthanasia bill C-384 express confidence the bill will be defeated if it comes to a vote this fall.

That is if an election does not kill Bloc Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde's private member's bill first. Elections in 2006 and 2008 killed Lalonde's two previous attempts to legalize assisted suicide.

"In the sense that it might happen, I'm quite confident that the vote's actually going to go the right way," said Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge, who chairs the parliamentary pro-life caucus. "On this one, there's clear lack of support in our party."

Bruinooge predicted many Liberals would also vote against the bill, as well as some in the New Democratic Party. Most of the support for Lalonde's bill will come from within her own caucus, he said.

Private member's bills, especially those dealing with conscience issues, are free votes, though the justice minister and opposition justice critics may recommend a position.

A spokesman for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the government has not taken a position on Bill C-384. Nor is it planning to remove assisted suicide and euthanasia from the Criminal Code.

NDP justice critic MP Joe Comartin said he is going to recommend his caucus vote against the bill.

Comartin said Canada needs to establish a cross-country network of good palliative and hospice care, including training in cutting-edge pain management techniques for frontline doctors. Otherwise, there is no real choice when someone is offered either intractable pain or assisted suicide.

When excellent palliative and hospice care is available, the issue of assisted suicide does not arise, he said.

However, Comartin doubts there will be unanimity in the NDP caucus.

A LOT OF CAUTION
Liberal MP John McKay said he did not expect the Liberal Party to support the bill. "I think there's a lot of caution to be exercised in this area."

Bill C-384 is scheduled for its first hour of debate in late September or early October. Its second hour of debate and a vote would not happen until later in the fall.

If the bill passes second reading, it must go to committee, then back to the House, then on to the Senate, pushing its passage well into the spring.

Canada's Catholic bishops, the Catholic Organization for Life and Family, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) and other groups mounted a campaign, urging Canadians to contact their MPs.

That campaign has been successful, according to EPC executive director Alex Schadenberg who has urged the defeat of Lalonde's bill on second reading. He predicts at least 155 MPs would vote against it.

"I'm cautious, obviously, because you never know before the final vote is taken."

Schadenberg differs from activists who hope an election will kill the bill. "I'm actually wanting to defeat this bill.

"We need to have members of Parliament send a strong message that this is not the way Canada should be going."

He urged caution because a segment of the intellectual elite, with access to the media, is pushing euthanasia. "We cannot let our guard down."

Questioning euthanasia

Brian Lilley who writes for the parliamentary bureau for the Sun Media was published today with this article in which he questions euthanasia. Lilley points out that euthanasia is not about pulling the plug, but rather legalizing euthanasia would give physicians the right to cause your death, usually by lethal injection. Lilley also points out that the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care has been established to research and make suggestion to parliament on how Canadians can be given better care and hopefully reverse the demand for euthanasia.

Questioning Euthanasia

By Brian Lilley - September 10, 2010

Do we want to give the government and government-run hospitals the power to kill us?

That’s really what is at the heart of the debate and special commission on euthanasia taking place in Quebec.

Everyone has an opinion on euthanasia and assisted suicide but are we all really talking about the same thing?

Put simply, euthanasia is killing someone out of an act of mercy, normally a sick person or one close to death. We can argue over whether that is true mercy, but we cannot deny it is killing someone.

Often euthanasia is a lethal injection given by a doctor.

Euthanasia is not pulling the plug on medical treatment that has little or no hope of curing the patient and is only prolonging their life. Nor is a patient refusing treatment considered euthanasia.

Even the Catholic Church, a group highly opposed to euthanasia, allows its members to follow those paths without running afoul of church teaching.

Canadians already enjoy the ability to set out a living will that directs doctors not to keep them alive on life support, not to continue treatment for the sake of treatment. Yet when you ask people why they support euthanasia they will often say, “I don’t want to be hooked up to machines.”

You don’t have to be and there is no need to change the law to accommodate you.

In the Globe and Mail on Thursday, Gary Mason told a tale that most of us have to deal with at some point, a relative living out their last years in less than an ideal way. As Mason wrote of his father, living in a nursing home and able to only give “the slightest acknowledgement” of his son’s presence, it seemed as if he were siding with those want to allow euthanasia.

By the end of Mason’s column he was calling for more palliative care.

Last spring MPs voted 228-59 against a Bloc MPs bill to allow euthanasia.

The bill was so broad it would have allowed hospitals to kill those who were depressed or mentally ill. Even some MPs that might have supported the cause otherwise voted against it.

Another group, seeing the direction the debate was headed, decided to do something to offer an alternative and from that a multi-party committee on palliative care was formed.

Chaired by Conservative Harold Albrecht, Liberal Michelle Simson and New Democrat Joe Comartin, the committee is studying ways to improve the health system for those in need of end-of-life care.

Comartin told me at the time that unless there is proper palliative care, to ease the pain of those who are dying, legalizing euthanasia would result in most people choosing death by injection.

My colleague David Akin wrote on this debate Thursday and pointed to a poll from 1996 showing that most doctors opposed euthanasia. I don’t know if that figure stands today, but the reasons doctors would reject it are simple.

Doctors are trained to heal patients, they look for cures, they look to comfort us when cures do not exist. Legalizing euthanasia in a government-run health-care system like Canada’s would require doctors to also kill their patients.

If we are going to have a debate on a topic as sensitive as euthanasia, let’s make sure we define our terms ahead of time.

brian.lilleyt@sunmedia.ca

Link to the article: http://www.lfpress.com/comment/columnists/brian_lilley/2010/09/09/15300811.html

EUTHANASIA PREVENTION COALITION GRANTED INTERVENOR STANDING IN BC EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE TRIAL

Press Release                                   For Immediate Release

Thursday, October 20, 2011

BC Supreme Court Justice Lynne Smith ordered that the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) and EPC - BC are granted standing to intervene in the euthanasia and assisted suicide case of Carter et al. v. Attorney General Canada which is presently scheduled for a four week trial to begin on November 14, 2011 in the BC Supreme Court. The case seeks to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.

EPC Executive Director Alex Schadenberg states as follows:

“The decision granting our organization standing will enable us to represent our constituency of people with disabilities, seniors, healthcare practitioners and members of different cultural and religious backgrounds in order meet our mandate to preserve and enforce social, legal and medical safeguards prohibiting euthanasia and assisted suicide and promoting compassionate healthcare respectful of the lives, dignity and autonomy of vulnerable people.”

 Schadenberg notes that:

“This issue was debated last year in the Canadian Parliament and consistent with earlier Senate Committee reports, Parliament rejected Bill C-384 overwhelmingly a bill which would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.”

Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care receives input in Montreal

The Suburban, Quebec's largest english weekly newspaper published an article written by Ian Howarth concerning the input that was received on the West Island of Montreal by the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care, in mid December. The Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care is an all-party ad-hoc committee that is co-chaired by Joe Comartin (NDP), Michelle Simson (Lib), and Harold Albrecht (CPC).

The article reported:

The committee, of which Lac St. Louis MP Francis Scarpaleggia is a leading member, heard from a variety of stakeholders in the sensitive palliative and compassionate care sector of public health. “This is more of a grass roots effort of parliament,” explained Scarpaleggia. “The committee was born out of a concern for the kind of care sectors of Canadian society are being given, especially in the areas of palliative care, suicide prevention, elder abuse and disability issues.”

Concerning elder abuse, the article pointed to the presentation by Peter Eusanio from Comfort Keepers:

Peter Eusanio, who runs Comfort Keepers, a private home care service, talked of the way some seniors are at the mercy of other service providers and the difficult struggles they have in basic day to day living. Eusanio related stories of seniors left high and dry with grocery bags by uncaring taxi drivers or in another case a senior who had been robbed by a family member - and blamed it on the caregiver - to support a drug habit. The government of Canada has recently produced a series of public service television ads addressing the issue of elder abuse with the tagline, It’s Time to Face the Reality of Elder Abuse, encouraging Canadians to not turn a blind eye.

Debbie Magwood told the committe about the importance of the compassionate care that West Island Cancer Wellness Centre offers:

When Debbie Magwood started up The West Island Cancer Wellness Centre (WICWC) two years ago, she had no idea of the response she would get. Now the challenge is to keep up with the demand. Providing what she called psychosocial services to cancer patients and their families, the WICWC has tripled its numbers needing compassionate care. “Cancer patients and their families sometimes feel abandoned by the healthcare system,” she told the committee. “Of course there is the medical treatment, but there are other aspects to consider, like the stress associated with cancer.” Magwood added that all health agencies should be working together to give cancer patients and those close to them the compassionate care they need. She added that the WICWC’s operating budget is totally supported by independent fundraising, something she thought the committee would want to address when putting together its report

.
Teresa Dellar and Rose De Angelis from the West Island Palliative Care Residence explained the need for more support in providing palliative care services. The article stated:

Executive Director Teresa Dellar and assistant director general Rose De Angelis of the West Island Palliative Care Residence (WIPCR) struck a similar chord in their afternoon presentation to the committee. Every year the WIPCR raises $1.3 million through a variety of methods and along with the provincial government’s $700,000 contribution the residence is able to run its nine-bed facility. They do not receive any funding from the federal government.

De Angelis and Dellar related their concerns to the committee that not enough cancer patients were able to get the care they deserved. In fact, only 16-30 percent of Canadians have access to palliative care. The WIPCR is the only adult palliative care residence on the island of Montreal.

“We’re short 14 palliative beds on the West Island,” said De Angelis. “It should be one bed for every 10,000 people. When we started out in 1998, we were prepared for 140 patients per year and now it is more like 242 per year.”

De Angelis has no illusions, but is hopeful that the Palliative and Compassionate Care ad-hoc committee’s report will affect serious change. “I’d like to believe that since they are talking to the front-line service providers that it will at least raise awareness at the government and public level,” she said.

The work of the Palliative and Compassionate Care Committee was explained by the paper:

The committee, formed in April 2010, includes six MPs along with 45 other members that have met eight times in Ottawa as well as 17 regional round table meetings hosted across the country. The non-partisan committee’s goal is to address palliative, hospice and home care issues, suicide prevention, elder abuse and disability issues. A report, which will be forwarded to the government, is expected to be filed by next spring.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition looks forward to the release of this important report. The work of the Palliative and Compassionate Care Committee is historic and forward thinking. Canada needs to be prepared for providing the care in the future for its citizens.

Compassionate Care

Jean Echlin, the past VP of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and a former executive director of the Hospice of Windsor, sent in an article that was published in the Windsor Star concerning the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care.

The article is reprinted below:

Compassionate Care

Jean Echlin, Special to The Windsor Star - November 13, 2010

In April 2010, a new federal parliamentary group was formed. This followed the stunning defeat of Bill C-384, which sought to change Canada's Criminal Code to allow euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Thanks to the vision of some members of Parliament who voted against the bill, a non-partisan, multi-party group called "the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care (PCPCC) began deliberations.

The Committee is co-chaired by Windsor-Tecumseh MP Joe Comartin (NDP) and NDP Justice Critic; Scarborough Southwest MP Michelle Simson (Lib); Kitchener-Conestoga MP Harold Albrecht (CPC); founding members, MP Frank Valeriote; MP Kelly Block; and more than 50 MP members, with varying degrees of involvement.

A four-pronged approach developed by PCPCC includes: promotion of the need for palliative care for all Canadians facing end-of-life issues such as pain and symptom management; implications of an on-going mental health crisis and suicide prevention; elder abuse, including lack of compassionate care; and issues encountered by persons with disabilities.

Broad consultations are taking place in every region of Canada concerning present levels of care available to an ageing society and a critical nationwide shortage of expertise and resources in the field of palliative, hospice, home-care and mental health.

As a member of the Advisory Council of The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research's, Toronto, I attended the PCPCC's hearing, in the West Block of the federal Parliament Buildings on October 19.

The deVeber Institute's submission "Proposal for Integrated Palliative Care" was addressed by Dr. L.L. (Barrie) deVeber, founding director of The Institute and myself. The paper points out the need for education in palliative, end-of-life care for all healthcare providers and earlier patient referrals to palliative care specialists.

The existence of the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care brings attention to the complex and multi-faceted needs of many Canadians facing the issues and often the chaos associated with acute and chronic pain, debilitating and late stage illness.

Many programs involved with hospice palliative care and pain management exist in Canada, however are accessible to only a small percentage of the population needing these services.

The utilization and effectiveness of these programs make it abundantly clear that there is no need for Canadians to spend much of their lives immobilized by chronic pain or to die in pain, loneliness, anxiety and bereft of dignity. We must keep pushing for appropriate, knowledgeable and compassionate care regardless of a person's diagnosis, (physical or mental illness), age, gender, culture or religious persuasion.

Personally, I am in awe of the enormity of work this parliamentary committee has undertaken. Their commitment to this effort in addition to their parliamentary and constituency workloads is highly commendable. Further, these parliamentarians are showing exemplary non-partisan collaboration in addressing these fundamental issues. It is hoped that this Committee will be a model for future governmental cross-party endeavours.

A favourite proverb: "Do not withhold good from those who deserve it, when it is in your power to act."

Jean Echlin lives in Windsor and is an independent nurse consultant in palliative care and gerontology.

The Third International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide - a tremendous success

The Third International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Vancouver (June 3 - 4) was a tremendous success. The goals that were set-out before the Symposium were surpassed. The DVD’s of the Symposium will be available in early July for $50 for the complete set. The Third International Symposium was organized by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC).

The International leaders had a meeting on Thursday, June 2, that was chaired by Alex Schadenberg. The meeting examined issues related to the language of the debate and common directions for the group. There was general agreement concerning the language of the debate and the group agreed to appoint Hugh Scher, the legal counsel for EPC, to work on branding and common ideas.

We discussed our need to strengthen the international leadership of the group. The group agreed that Alex Schadenberg would continue to be the Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - International. Paul Russell - HOPE Australia, Peter Saunders - Care NOT Killing Alliance UK, Margaret Dore - Seattle Attorney, Nancy Elliott - New Hampshire and Mark Pickup - Human Life Matters agreed to complete the new international leaders team. Paul Russell was appointed as Vice-Chair.

The Friday sessions were mainly devoted to establishing what has occurred over the past few years. These sessions of the Symposium celebrated our many successes.

Rita Marker, the leader of the Patients Rights Council, spoke about the history of the euthanasia movement in America. She also urged the participants to focus on the language of the debate.

Henk Reitsma, from the Netherlands, uncovered the changes that have occurred in the Netherlands over the past 10 years, since euthanasia was officially legalized. He showed us how dutch citizens have the lowest death rates in Europe during the medium years of their lives but they have the highest death rates at birth and they are now dying at a younger age. He also uncovered the fact that the rates of euthanasia by sedation and dehydration have risen dramatically. It appears that Dutch physicians prefer to end the lives of their patients in that manner to avoid filling out the paper work.

Paul Russell, the leader of HOPE Australia spoke about the successful defeat of the euthanasia bills in South Australia. He emphasized how effective it has been working with Margaret Dore and EPC. He also explained how the euthanasia lobby is changing and how he is adapting his message.

Peter Saunders, the campaign director for the Care NOT Killing Alliance in the UK, spoke about the many development in Europe and in the UK. He spoke about how the assisted suicide prosecution guidelines in the UK are being abused. He informed us of the current directions in Europe.

Gordon Macdonald, the leader of the Care NOT Killing Alliance in Scotland spoke about the successful defeat of the Margo Macdonald euthanasia bill. He explained to us what worked and he emphasized how the next challenge by the euthanasia lobby will be more difficult.

Nancy Elliot, a former three term representative from New Hampshire, who worked to defeat the assisted suicide bill in her state, emphasized how maintaining a focused message enabled her to successfully convince the legislature to oppose assisted suicide.

Bradley Williams, the leader of Montanans against Assisted Suicide explained that assisted suicide is not legal in Montana and how his grass roots approach is building a strong opposition to assisted suicide in his state.

Linda Couture, the director of Vivre dans la Dignité in Quebec explained how they have built a strong opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide in Quebec. They continue to challenge the Quebec government - Dying with Dignity committee to not allow euthanasia through the backdoor.

Harry van Bommel spoke about the founding principles of the hospice movement and urged us to maintain the founding principles. He emphasized the importance of caring for your friends and family and how the experience of caring for others is positive both personally and for society.

Dr. Margaret Cottle, the VP of EPC Canada spoke about the long and caring heritage of medicine. She spoke about how doctors can be healers or killers. She then coined the term “cultural green” and explained the reasons why there is a long history of doctors refusing to kill their patients. She said that the ethical heritage is like an old growth forest that took a long time to grow but is easy to cut down.

Alex Schadenberg spoke about a series of studies that have been published in the literature over the past few years. He proved that people who live with depression are dying by euthanasia in the Netherlands and assisted suicide in Oregon. He proved that more than 30% of all euthanasia deaths in Belgium are done without request or consent and nearly 50% of all euthanasia deaths in Belgium are not reported. He explained the history of the Groningen Protocol, the protocol that allows for the euthanasia of infants with disabilities in the Netherlands and how the language of the Protocol is eugenic.

The Friday dinner featured Senator Helen Polley from Australia who spoke about the long history of the euthanasia lobby in Australia continuously pushing on a territory, state and federal level for the legalization of euthanasia. Senator Polley was truly inspiring.

Saturday morning began with a presentation from Msgr Barreiro from HLI who spoke about the nature of the human person.


Joe Comartin, the NDP co-chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care shared with the group some of the findings of the parliamentary committee. He emphasized that Canada needs to implement many changes in the care it provides to people in vulnerable conditions and that if the government can commit to a program of change, that the demand for euthanasia would drop substantially if not nearly completely. He stated that we have a lot of work to do but he has hope.

Krista Flint from Inclusive Humanity and Rhonda Wiebe with the Council of Canadians with Disabilities spoke about how to re-frame the debate around the issues of euthanasia. They emphasized the importance of the lived experience and how images, stories and messages can imprint on a culture. They showed us how similar messages presented in a different way can produce a very different response.

Margaret Dore spoke about the importance of language and how to frame your message in a way that the mainstream society will agree. She used examples of the recent campaigns in Montana, New Hampshire and Washington State to give examples of the messages that worked and the messages that didn’t work. She emphasized that we need to maintain message discipline.

Nick Goiran, a Liberal member of the Western Australian state legislature, spoke about the successful defeat of the euthanasia bill in Western Australia. Nick emphasized the importance of one on one meetings and explained how he effectively compared the issue to the capital punishment debate in Australia.

Hugh Scher spoke about the current court challenges in Canada. He spoke about EPC's involvement in the Hawryluck vs Scardoni and Rasouli court cases. He emphasized the importance of these precedent setting cases and how they are affecting medical decision making in Canada. Hugh also spoke about the recent court challenges by the Farewell Foundation in BC and the BC Civil Liberties Association. The current court challenges are designed to strike down Canada’s laws prohibiting euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Mark and Laree Pickup spoke about their life experience with disability. Mark was diagnosed with MS nearly 30 years ago and experienced a roller coaster ride from being an active and athletic man to requiring assistance and support for many of his daily tasks. Mark stated that if euthanasia had been legal in those early years that he would have taken the lethal dose in his time of despair. Laree admitted that during the difficult times that she considered divorcing Mark to start a new life without a husband with disabilities. Mark stated that he is thankful that euthanasia was not available to take his life in his time of despair. Now that he has accepted his disabilities he has found great dignity and happiness in his life.

Mark & Laree called on the participants to be part of an interdependent community and not buy into the ideology of the euthanasia lobby that values life only in what you do, rather than what you are.

The Third International Symposium concluded with an announcement by Peter Saunders and Gordon Macdonald that the Euthanasia Prevention International will co-host a European Symposium in Scotland, possibly in June 2012 and an announcement by Paul Russell that the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International will co-host a Australasian Symposium in Australia, possibly in September 2012.

The Third International Symposium was a tremendous success because it brought together most of the world leaders who updated and challenged the participants of the Symposium. It also created an effective, unified and active group of leaders who will continue to build successful campaign to defeat bills to legalize euthanasia and turn the tide on the cultural paradigm of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Palliative care Motion 456 debated in Canadian parliament

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Charlie Angus

Tuesday April 1, Charlie Angus MP (Timmins - James Bay NDP) had his first hour of debate on his private members motion (M 456) for a National Palliative and End-of-Life Care Strategy in Canada.

I was fortunate to witness the first hour of debate in Ottawa in the House of Commons. Link to the debate in parliament.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) wants its supporters to contact their Member of Parliament to ask them to support M 456. Link to the Member of Parliament contact information.

Motion 456:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should establish a Pan-Canadian Palliative and End-of-life Care Strategy by working with provinces and territories on a flexible, integrated model of palliative care that: (a) takes into account the geographic, regional, and cultural diversity of urban and rural Canada; (b) respects the cultural, spiritual and familial needs of Canada’s First Nation, Inuit and Métis people; and (c) has the goal of (i) ensuring all Canadians have access to high quality home-based and hospice palliative end-of-life care, (ii) providing more support for caregivers, (iii) improving the quality and consistency of home and hospice palliative end-of-life care in Canada, (iv) encouraging Canadians to discuss and plan for end-of-life care.

Angus, the sponsor of M 456 spoke first to the Motion. He first thanked the many groups and individuals who have supported M 456 from across Canada he stated:

I would like to thank the medical leaders, medical organizations, front-line service providers who are serving people in need, and the social workers, pharmacists, nurses and doctors, for the support that we received. I would also like to thank members of the various spiritual communities of Canada who have supported this motion.

Not to be Forgotten

Angus then acknowledged the work of the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care who published an all-party report on these issue. Angus stated:

I would also like to thank the incredible work of the all-party committee. The Parliament of Canada is known as a relatively toxic place at most times, but members of all parties came together on this vital issue and worked hard. I would like to recognize the members of the Conservative, Liberal, and New Democratic parties who worked on the study and wanted to bring forward to Parliament the need for us to establish this pan-Canadian strategy on palliative care. I believe that the motion I am bringing forward is carrying forward the work of this all-party committee.

Angus then explained how Motion 456 came together. He stated:

One of its key recommendations (Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care) is that the committee strongly urged that the federal government re-establish a palliative care secretariat for the sake of developing and implementing a national palliative and end-of-life care strategy. In honour of the work that my colleagues in the other parties and New Democrats did on that committee, we are bringing forward that motion tonight.