Publisher

Euthanasia

Canada – Doctor realizes how disabled people are nudged to be euthanized

Corrina Iampen, a Canadian doctor-turned-patient after an accident left her paralyzed, who never opposed euthanasia, now feels very concerned about euthanasia and its practical application. For young and elderly patients who suddenly find themselves having to come to terms with a new disability which makes them vulnerable at this time, euthanasia can be overwhelmingly tempting, especially when good support is unavailable. Hospital staff can make disabled patients feel like a burden through their lack of interest to improve the quality of life before offering euthanasia. Corrina is also concerned about Bill C-7 which expands euthanasia in Canada especially for people with disabilities. Disability rights activists have criticized the bill calling it discriminatory to offer death to the disabled but not to people without disabilities.

She is not alone in her concerns about this expansion. In 2017, a 42-year-old man suffering from an incurable neurological condition spent more than 2 years at the London, Ontario, Hospital where he secretly recorded staff who repeatedly offering him euthanasia while his request for self-directed care were denied. In 2019, doctors were criticized for euthanizing a physically healthy but depressed 61-year-old British Columbia man. His family members said he was not of sound mind and begged him not to go through with the procedure. Another Canadian doctor, Naheed Dosani, a University of Toronto-affiliated palliative care specialist who cares for homeless people from a mobile unit, testified before the senate on February 1, saying that euthanasia is far easier to access than actual help to improve people’s lives. He said that people who’ve pursued euthanasia do so because they’ve experienced marginalization. More / Chronically ill man releases audio of hospital staff offering assisted death / Dr. Naheed Dosani Testifies at Senate on Bill C-7.

South Africa – High Court to hear terminally ill patient and doctor request for euthanasia

Susan Walter, a palliative care specialist and her patient Diethelm Harck have both been diagnosed with terminal diseases and hope to persuade Johannesburg High Court Judge Raylene Keightly to develop the law to allow euthanasia. The matter was heard on 22 February. They accuse the law as it stands and the HPCSA of impinging on their right to dignity and right to live and die as they choose. Stranger arguments have been heard in court before. The problem with their argument and accusation of Christian values being imposed is that the same values are held by the Islamic, Hinduism, and Buddhist culture, most people feel life is sacred. Usually people desperate to end their lives do not really waste time with court battles over their right to die. When looking to countries that have gone ahead of South Africa in legalizing euthanasia, it becomes clear that the practice is nothing more than legalized psychological abuse, because now the disabled, the elderly and the ones deemed to be “burdens” on a society are made to feel like they are better off dead by those grown cold at heart. Belgium’s nurses for example admit to euthanizing patients without their consent, and a wife from Texas lost her disabled husband to a doctor’s decision of euthanasia without her consent because the doctor said he wasn’t like “walking and talking people”. All this happened despite the so-called ‘safeguards’ promised by euthanasia advocates, that would prevent these concerns. If this is what happens in First world countries, what can a developing country like South Africa expect, worse? More / COVID-19 patient was black and paralyzed, so doctors decided his life wasn’t worth saving / Warning to Britain as almost half of Belgium’s euthanasia nurses admit to killing without consent

Euthanasia

UK – Human Rights Experts alarmed at growing trend seeking euthanasia for the disabled

United Nations Human Rights experts expressed alarm at a growing trend to legalise euthanasia based largely on having a disability or disabling conditions, including in old age. They said that Disability should never be a ground or justification to end someone’s life directly or indirectly. This, the experts said, that normalizing euthanasia for the people who are not terminally ill or suffering at the end of their lives would give rise to discriminative assumptions about the inherent “quality of life” or “worth” of the life of a person with a disability. Such assumptions are grounded in ableism and associated stereotypes. Disability is not a burden or a deficit of the person. It is a universal aspect of the human condition. Article, UN Statement.

Belgium – New study finds euthanasia ethically broken in Belgium

A new study in The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy has argued that Belgian euthanasia is ethically broken, both administratively and legally. The study draws on thoroughly researched academic research over the past 20 years and the reports of the control commission itself. The authors three main assertions are; the scope of the Euthanasia Law

That has stretched from being used for serious and incurable illnesses to cover tiredness of life. Tiredness of life is not supported by Belgian law but doctors circumvent the law by diagnosing “polypathology”– a jumble of ailments which nearly every elderly person has. This represented 19.4% of all reported euthanasia cases in 2019 and a “staggering” 47% of all reported nonterminal cases.

“Second, the obligatory consultation of one or two independent physicians may fail to provide a real safeguard. Their tasks are quite limited, and, more importantly, their advice is not binding anyway. The final authority to perform euthanasia lies with the attending physician who can perform it even against the (negative) advice of the consulted physicians.” For example: If euthanasia is requested for a psychiatric condition, a psychiatrist should be consulted. However, if the patient has another condition, it can be redefined as “polypathology” and a GP can approve it, eliminating the need for a psychiatric consultation.

Third, “The Commission is unable to check the fulfilment of various legal criteria, and it has substantial authority to (re) interpret the Euthanasia Law as it sees fit.” In fact, “the Commission does not seem to act as a filter between physicians who perform euthanasia and the Public Prosecutor, but instead as a shield that prevents potentially problematic cases from being referred.”

Conflict of interest is baked into the composition of the 16-member evaluation committee. Eight of them must be doctors and many of them, including the chairman, Wim Distelmans, perform euthanasia regularly. So they end up checking each other’s files for irregularities. They are supposed to recuse themselves if one of their own cases comes up – but they don’t. The Commission’s track record illustrates its ineffectiveness. In 18 years of legalisation, only one case was referred to the Public Prosecutor and it was so obviously in breach of the law that referral was needed to keep up appearances. Article, study.