Euthanasia

The public debate about the legalisation of euthanasia in France is raging. Some psychiatrists published a study that reviewed the role of psychiatrists in cases of requests for assisted suicide. The study was based on 127 articles, mostly sourced from Pubmed and Cairn, dating from 1997 to 2020, involving Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg and Oregon. The study emphasised the importance of an in-depth consultation with a psychiatrist in all requests for assisted suicide. This decision was based on the findings that the most prevalent reasons for a request to die are “spirituality, attachment style, social isolation, despair, depression […]. It was also found that a doctor’s qualifications influence the evaluation of patients and can obscure the motivations that lead a person to request euthanasia.

Source

Dignitas, a Swiss organisation that promotes “the right to die with dignity”, submitted a Preliminary Question of Constitution (PQC) to the French Council of State. The aim of the PQC was to counter the ban of the euthanasia drug, pentobarbital, in France. The French Council rejected the proposal and highlighted the risk of pentobarbital to public health. Dignitas is proud of its role in having assisted suicide recognised by the German and Austrian constitutional courts. They continue to try to achieve the same in France, however, thus far have failed. Their website explicitly criticises France for its suicide prevention policy indicating that Dignitas is striving to impose its deadly practices in foreign countries.

Source

Euthanasia

Australia – Fatally Flawed Experiments in 21 countries with euthanasia

A booklet of 100 pages titled: “Fatally flawed Experiments in Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia” documents the failure of euthanasia laws in 21 countries/states around the world. Euthanasia laws, once legalised, quickly moved goal posts that went from unbearable suffering to include depression, mental illness, symptoms associated with old age that were not fatal, child euthanasia, suicidal ideation, prisoners and mental health detainees, Disabilities, victims of sexual abuse, non-terminal conditions, and psychiatric disorders. Studies also cited how doctors and nurses often deliberately hastened death of a patient without explicit consent or request from the patient for euthanasia. Among the 21 listed countries are Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Germany, Spain and Western Australia. More, Fatally Flawed Experiments in Euthanasia.

USA – Organ Donation Euthanasia: the healthy can now die to donate

When organ transplant medicine began, the “dead donor rule” was instituted to assure a wary public that people’s vital organs would only be procured after the person was dead. A corollary to that rule assures the public that people will not be killed for their body parts. Many bioethicists are now pushing to allow doctors to kill via organ harvest, sometimes called “organ donation euthanasia” (ODE).

At first, this proposal was limited to patients on the verge of death or the permanently unconscious. Now, a prominent bioethics journal has published a piece urging that healthy people be allowed to die by removal of vital organs. The author claims that because people can instruct life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn (LST), and can donate their organs after death, that ODE is also OK because it will result in death, too, and result in more usable organs procured and more lives saved.

Proponents of ODE argue that if the patient consents, it would be permissible to procure the patient’s organs before death. This will of course mean that the patient will die from donating his or her vital organs instead of dying from having his or her treatment withdrawn. However, this seems ethically immaterial in this situation since the outcome for the patient will be the same.

But that’s not true. Not everyone dies after having life-sustaining treatment withdrawn. Indeed, under current organ-donation protocols, if the patient doesn’t die, he is taken back to the ward and usually disqualified as an organ donor thereafter. If this does not constitute a slippery slope then people live in a state of denial or ignorance, wherever euthanasia is legalized it always morphed into something else. “If we can do this, then why not do that also?” More

USA – California seeks to expand euthanasia

The California assisted death lobby is supporting a court case to expand assisted suicide to euthanasia in California. 

Legally, assisted suicide is a form of suicide where the law requires a person to “self-administer” a lethal drug cocktail with the assistance of a “medical professional” while euthanasia is a form of homicide whereby the “medical professional” lethally injects the person with a lethal drug cocktail. In the past few years the American assisted death lobby has pushed the limits of state assisted suicide laws.

In 2019, Oregon eliminated the 15 day waiting period for assisted suicide and currently California is debating assisted suicide expansion bill SB 380 which, among other things, eliminates the requirement of a formal examination of the law. The New Mexico assisted suicide law only requires a 48 hour waiting period, that can be waived, and it redefined who could approve assisted suicide to include nurses. More

Australia – Politicians aren’t listening to logical, evidence-based arguments.

Five out of Australia’s six states have lawful assisted suicide and euthanasia: Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania, South Australia and recently Queensland joined. The new law has three serious flaws. First, health practitioners are permitted to initiate a discussion of “assisted dying” with patients. Second, doctors who have a conscientious objection to “assisted dying” are obliged to refer to a compliant doctor. And third, healthcare facilities must permit “assisted dying” on their premises, even if it violates their “institutional conscience”. These concerns were raised in the amendments and all of them were voted down. Opposition to euthanasia is not just religious; there are countless reasons to oppose it on medical, legal, and social grounds. More

Euthanasia

Canada – Mother seeks to expand euthanasia to her disabled 4-year-old son

A mother in Quebec seeks to expand euthanasia to enable her to euthanise her 4-year-old son which is severely disabled, is deaf, lives with severe intellectual disability, has daily intestinal problems, and has already come close to death several times. She said there was no possibility for her son’s quality of life to improve and invited two senators to her home of which one senator decided to champion the cause of child euthanasia. The current Canadian law permits euthanasia for people who are at least 18 years old and capable of consenting. For those who claim that legalizing euthanasia does not lead to a “slippery slope” think again. Michel Bureau President of the Commission on Life Care said, “This is what is dangerous; a slippage that only allows those who are beautiful and perfect to live,”

In January this year, United Nations Human Rights experts expressed alarm at a growing trend to enact legislation enabling access to euthanasia based largely on having a disability or disabling conditions, including in old age. The statement on their website condemned such legislation and said such legislation is grounded in ableist and stereotypical assumptions about the inherent ‘quality of life’ or ‘worth’ of the life of a person with a disability. The UN statement also recognised that such legislation normalises the act of euthanasia and condemned it. Mother-seeks-to-euthanise-4-year-old-son, Disability is not a reason to sanction medically assisted dying – UN experts.

Australia – Dissenting report opposes euthanasia

Dr Mark Robinson Member of Parliament (MP) in the Queensland Australia parliament wrote a dissenting report to the official parliamentary report on the proposed assisted dying bill. Dr Robinson’s report creates a strong basis for opposing assisted dying. Similar to another report on assisted suicide by Nick Goiran who wrote a report titled: License to Care not License to Kill opposing the legalization of euthanasia which was meticulously researched, documenting world-wide concerns with legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Dr Robinson’s dissenting report is 24 pages of strong arguments against euthanasia. He argues that physicians should not be involved in interventions whose primary intention is the ending of a person’s life, therefore acts of euthanasia are unethical. He emphasized that if proper end-of-life care and palliative care were available there would be no demand for euthanasia and points out that euthanasia has become an alternative to the lack of proper end-of-life care.

What is initially proposed as a measure to help a very small number of people, said to be in intolerable physical pain, is progressively broadened to apply to thousands of people, including those with no physical medical condition. Initial procedural safeguards are also relaxed. Once you lift the lid on Pandora’s box, there’s no going back.
Many vulnerable people experience subtle pressure to take their own life – some are made to feel almost duty bound to their family or to society to end their life prematurely. When elder abuse is combined with legalised access to euthanasia, it inevitably leaves the most vulnerable at risk of being coerced into ending their lives. Wrongful deaths have followed these laws everywhere they are introduced. Article (See both reports &/or download them below)

Euthanasia

Canada – Medical Organisations: euthanasia will provide not prevent suicide.

Several countries have permitted euthanasia for patients with psychiatric illness opening the door to provide suicide rather than prevent it. The American Medical Association repeatedly concluded that euthanasia practices are “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as a healer,” and the World Medical Association is firmly opposed to euthanasia. Experts in Canadian law and medicine wrote: Bill C-7 will allow physicians to end the life of people with disabilities or chronic illnesses at their request and will require the system to ensure it happens even when physicians are convinced, based on their expert knowledge, that medicine offers options and even when the patient may have years or decades to live with a good quality of life if other options are explored and tried first. More

USA – Bioethicists look for different ways to eliminate incapacitated people

Two prominent bioethicists propose the implantation of a time-release suicide device that will cause future death at the time of the patient’s choosing. This is to eliminate people diagnosed with dementia when they become incapacitated. Belgium and the Netherlands permit advance orders to be euthanized. Another proposal gaining traction in bioethics would force caregivers to starve patients to death. This new idea was published in the Hastings Center Report — the world’s most prominent bioethics journal. This device is called an “advance directive implant, or ADI”. The ADI would require extensive engineering, would be computerized subdermal implant containing a lethal dose of a medication or combination of medications. Release of lethal dose would occur rapidly after a predetermined interval or after some specific event had occurred. The ADI would likely require a long-lasting battery, computerized control, and a pump or microfluidic mechanism. More

Netherlands – Assisted suicide now available without doctor intervention!

Recently a 28-year-old man was arrested and charged for selling a suicide drug to at least six people for 20 euros over the internet. Some of his clients were young people police said. According to police, the man also had links to Cooperatie Laatste Wil (CLW) (Last Wish Cooperative), a euthanasia group that promotes “assisted suicide without the intervention of doctors”. Similar groups operate under the radar in other countries. A long feature article in the popular newspaper de Volkskrant about the death of a 28-year-old woman named Marjolein in September 2020. She had a history of depression and mental instability. She also bought the suicide drug from and agent of CLW. She changed her mind almost immediately, but efforts to rescue her failed. Jos van Wijk, chairman of the CLW, indignantly rejected the family’s accusations of improper conduct saying they adhere to the rules of law. This is another example of how things get out of hand once euthanasia is legalized in a country. More

Euthanasia

Belgium – UN Human Rights Council criticized Belgium’s euthanasia law

Since Belgium legalized Euthanasia in 2002, the country has experienced a hundredfold increase in registered euthanasia deaths. In February 2014, the law expanded to enable doctors to end the lives of children of any age. In 2017, almost 20% of deaths by euthanasia in Belgium involved patients displaying symptoms common with aging. In May this year, the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland challenged Belgium on the human rights implications of its euthanasia law with various states urging the government to improve treatment of the elderly and of persons with disabilities. Not only does the European Court of Human Rights challenge Belgium on its euthanasia law but also now pending another case before Europe’s top court in the Tom Mortier case.

The case, which now sits before the top European court, has the potential to set a precedent for euthanasia laws across Europe. The Court’s decision could affect more than 820 million Europeans across the 47 Council of Europe Member States subject to its rulings.

The World Medical Association has consistently rejected the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide as being unethical. The act has long been associated with discriminatory attitudes against those who are elderly or disabled.

“The slippery slope is on full public display in Belgium, and we see the tragic consequences in this case. According to the most recent government report, more than six people per day are euthanized in this way, and that may yet be the tip of the iceberg. The figures expose the truth that, once these laws are passed, the impact of euthanasia cannot be controlled. Belgium has set itself on a trajectory that, at best, implicitly tells the most vulnerable that their lives are not worth living,” said Robert Clarke, Deputy Director of Advocacy for ADF International, who represents Tom Mortier before the Court. Article, More on Tom Mortier case.

Belgium – Anthology of behind-the-scenes observations from professionals

The Springer website, publisher of many medical journals has released a downloadable copy: Searching for the Full Story: Experiences and Insights of Belgian Doctors and Nurses. Euthanasia, though legal in Belgium, is opposed by some healthcare professionals. This collection of essays contains insights and thought provoking stories from the authors’ professional experience. The testimonies reported in this book of professionals do not believe that euthanasia can be a medical or a caring act, neither can it be a neutral option. In essence, euthanasia does not complement palliative care, it ends it; it is not the pinnacle of care and support for the patient, it discontinues it; it does not relieve the patients, it takes their lives. This open access book has been written by ten Belgian health care professionals, nurses, university professors and doctors specializing in palliative care and ethicists who fear that euthanasia have become normalised and trivial. More

USA – Euthanasia expands to telehealth

During the Covid-19 pandemic telehealth was initiated and now a new bill is before the US Senate seeking to extend the use of telehealth. The 2019 New Mexico bill and the 2020 Hawaii bill included such provisions so this is nothing new. This would mean that a person with difficult health issues who feels like a burden on others, or is experiencing depression or distress, could commit suicide by telehealth without ever seeing a physician. People with unidentified psychological issues or suicidal ideation is of concern as well. A 2016 study published in the British Medical Journal showed that medical error is the third leading cause of death in the US, euthanasia by telehealth is expected to exasperate the problem. More, more

Euthanasia

Canada – Appeal to lawmakers considering legalizing euthanasia

In a 3-minute video presentation, Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition appeals to lawmakers to first examine the Canadian experience before legalizing euthanasia & assisted suicide. Hidden in the euthanasia debate are the stories of pressure and coercion. The following represent a sample of many stories from Canada…

Canada – Canadian Medical Health Association concerned about Euthanasia

In response to the Canadian government’s recent decision to permit Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) for people with mental illnesses, the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) issued a statement expressing deep disappointment. According to CMHA, until the health care system adequately responds to the mental health needs of Canadians, assisted dying should not be an option. This they also testified before the Senate in November of 2020. CMHA points out that it is “not possible to determine whether any particular case of mental illness represents “an advanced state of decline in capabilities that cannot be reversed.” And the CMHA “know that cases of severe and persistent mental illness that are initially resistant to treatment can, in fact, show significant recovery over time. Mental illness is very often episodic. Death, on the other hand, is not reversible. In Dutch and Belgian studies, a high proportion of people who were seeking MAID for psychiatric reasons, but did not get it, later changed their minds.” More

Australia – Nurse loses license to practice

Maura Kathryn Bannister, 60, an Australian nurse who referred to herself as the “angel of death” lost her nursing license on March 19 but will unlikely face criminal charges. Civil And Administrative Tribunal of the nursing and midwifery board of Australia, in the Bannister case decided to: disqualify her from applying for registration as a health practitioner for a period of two years from the date of this decision, and prohibit her from providing any health service for a period of two years from the date of this decision. This follows because she administered an unprescribed dose of morphine to an elderly and frail family friend who was receiving palliative care at home after a fall. Knowing the woman had already taken one dose or morphine that morning, Ms Bannister then gave another dose “greater than that prescribed, without any direction from the general practitioner to do so”.

The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in August 3, 2017, published a Netherlands study titled: End-of-Life Decisions in the Netherlands over 25 years. This study uncovers abuse of the law. In 2015 there were 150 assisted suicide deaths, 431 terminations of life without request in the Netherlands. The Netherlands euthanasia law did not prevent 431 terminations of life without request. The euthanasia lobby will argue that legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide will regulate and prevent these types of deaths, but in fact it normalizes it as an acceptable medical practice and makes it impossible to prevent or even censure someone who carries out similar acts. More

Euthanasia

South Africa – Medical doctor and patient wants doctors to kill their patients

A medical doctor and her patient, both terminally ill, are giving evidence in their bid to legalise euthanasia in South Africa. The actual legal challenge will only be heard in the Johannesburg High Court later this year but have been giving their evidence during virtual proceedings chaired by retired Judge CJ Claassen. The Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA), the Justice Minister, and the National Director of Public Prosecutions are opposing the application. The HPSCA has argued that palliative care in South Africa is sufficient enough to alleviate suffering. They also claim that assisted suicide could be abused by unscrupulous doctors and families who want to benefit from hastening a patient’s death. The Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) will be bringing expert evidence from Oregon, Colombia, Canada, and the Netherlands where the right to die is legal. More

Portugal – Constitutional Court Rejects Euthanasia

Portuguese Parliament had earlier this year voted to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia, comfortably approving five “right-to-die” bills. Now, Portugal’s Constitutional Court has rejected the parliament-approved bill seeking to legalize euthanasia, declaring that its text presented a threat to the principle of “inviolability of life.” The ruling noted the “excessively imprecise nature of the concept of unbearable suffering” contained in the bill, as well as lack of clarity on “the concept of severe irreversible damage.” As a result, the bill will now return to parliament, where the governing Socialist Party reportedly promised to simply reword the bill and attempt to pass it once more. For now, though, Portugal has avoided legalized euthanasia once more.

Catherine Robinson, a spokesperson for U.K. based Right to Life noted that “This is typical of euthanasia legislation and could eventually lead to its expansion. Why, after all, would we limit euthanasia only to those who are terminally ill and over 18 if they are otherwise in ‘unbearable’ pain? Children and adults can be in ‘unbearable’ pain without being terminally ill. If the justification for euthanasia lies in being in ‘unbearable’ pain then, it seems unfair to limit euthanasia to only those who are terminally ill.” Robinson also pointed to a report conducted by the Oregon Health Authority, which revealed that “only slightly more than a quarter of those who died by assisted suicide in Oregon listed ‘inadequate pain control, or concern about it’ as one of their end of life concerns. Far more significantly a full 94.3% of patients were concerned with being ‘less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable’. 93.1% were concerned with ‘losing autonomy’ and ‘loss of dignity’ was a concern of 71.8% of patients.” More

Latvia – Rejects Euthanasia Initiative

After a long debate, the Latvian Saeima rejected a citizen’s initiative to legalize euthanasia by a vote of 49 to 38. Opposition MP Viktors Valainis said euthanasia would be the easiest way for severely ill people to escape intolerable pain, yet it is “absolutely unacceptable” because it ignores a number of problems in palliative care. At the same time, the Member stated that he was prepared to do everything necessary to improve the medical sector in the country. Saeima deputy Anda Čakša recognized the topic of euthanasia as a call for help. She believes there are two important aspects – the accessibility of analgesia and palliative care and what are the people’s rights to refuse aggressive health treatment. However, the topic of euthanasia should not be on the table while the issue of palliative care remains unresolved. More