Euthanasia lobby confirms elder abuse risk – but doesn’t seem to care

This article was published by Mercatornet on September 5, 2017

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell - The director of HOPE Australia

The Netherlands legalised both euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2002. The data shows an overwhelming preference for euthanasia. In 2015, there were 6672 euthanasia deaths and only 150 assisted suicide deaths; the total comprising at least 4.5% of all deaths.

In recent years the discussion about ‘life ending actions’ has turned to assisted suicide for ‘completed life’; where a person over a certain age may declare that they wish to end their lives even though they may have no serious medical issues.

Debate has raged back and forth on this new development for some years. An expert committee recommended that changes to the law not proceed, but there remains support from within government and some of the minor parties.

Reports in 2016 suggested that the government had drafted legislation. Health Minister, Edith Schippers, has said that "because the wish for a self-chosen end of life primarily occurs in the elderly, the new system will be limited to them”. The lower age limit is rather arbitrary with debate ranging from 60 to 70 years of age.

Legislation is expected to be introduced in late 2017. It is expected to take the form of a new law rather than an amendment. This seems to be because the existing provisions require medical opinion and support whereas this new form of assisted suicide may have more in common with the mail or online order system made notorious by the Australian activist Dr Philip Nitschke and his organisation, Exit International.

But this is not the first time that such a move has been put forward. As with all of these debates, there’s a long lead-in time while the discussion of the agenda looks to forge a beachhead of public opinion.

In 1991, Dutch Supreme Court Judge, Huib Drion, argued for “The self-chosen end for old people,” over the age of 75. He suggested a two-stage process where a person would self-administer a substance that would have no immediate effect that could be followed up later by the second stage substance that would react with the first and bring about death by suicide. The idea became known as “the Drion Pill” though no such pill was ever developed.

The publication of his paper in a newspaper, NRC Handelsblad, in 1991, sparked a significant controversy with letters of support for many weeks and Drion receiving a great deal of public attention.

The World Federation of Right to Die Societies (WFRTDS) also picked up on the idea as did its Dutch counterpart the Dutch Right to Die society (NVVE) and the former Dutch health minister Els Borst who was instrumental in the introduction of the 2002 euthanasia law.

In 2003, the WFRTDS adopted a name change to their policy support for Drion’s idea, calling it, instead, “The Last Will Pill” and noting that the resonance of the use of Drion’s name limited the association of the idea to the elderly. WFRTDS sees its application more broadly than that.

Both Drion and the WFRTDS are clear in the distinction between the practice of euthanasia in Holland and this new proposal.

The rhetoric is eerily similar to Nitschke and Exit: current euthanasia and assisted suicide laws are medical models that only partially give voice to autonomy. As NVVE chief executive officer Rob Jonquière, pointed out: 

“People want the right to choose to end their life independent of doctors or illness.”

This independence from any medical model has implications. As observed already, there are similarities in the proposals to the modus operandi of Exit and Philip Nitschke.

Another Dutch right-to-die club, The Co-operative Last Will, are also pushing this barrow. They seem willing to sail close to the edges of the law in advocacy and information in a similar way to Exit. They are promoting “a new drug” but refuse to identify it.

“The stuff is legally available and deadly in pure form. It has already been used by people who wanted to commit self-exploitation. There have also been several murders committed by the means.”

This is dangerous talk. As we have seen with the Nitschke methods, people who are not otherwise ill and people who suffered depressive illnesses have been caught up in the hype with devastating personal and family consequences. The reference to murders is chilling: clearly people have been tricked into consuming the drug.

Again, like Nitschke (who once said: “There will be some casualties…”), The Co-operative Last Will organisation is frank about the possible collateral damage:

“The Cooperative Last Will and its members (3,500 people) point out the existence and functioning of the new drug. The club realizes that it involves the risks. An extreme consequence could be that children give the means to their old and wealthy parents because they want to claim their inheritance.

"That kind of criticism is to be expected. But the sale of rope is also not forbidden, and so people rob themselves of life, "says a spokeswoman.” (Emphasis added)

A glib retort and hardly apposite. Robbing oneself of life is suicide – elder abuse to death is murder. But who would ever know.

But collateral damage it will be. Far from stopping Dutch “right-to-die” types in their tracks, such an acknowledgement seems more about deflecting criticism than it is about protecting Dutch citizens from abuse.

One wonders if the Zeitgeist had not been infected this past 20 years and more with the Dutch strain of the euthanasia virus if there might have been more pause for thought. Given that Drion’s infamous idea predates Dutch euthanasia by a full decade; perhaps not!

Paul Russell is director of HOPE: preventing euthanasia & assisted suicide, which is based in Australia.

Vancouver Sun and euthanasia lobby activist dissing disability activists

Stephen Drake from Not Dead Yet is not taking the crap from the euthanasia lobby, who are attempting to discount the opposition by people with disabilities to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

All I have to say is go get-em Stephen:

Read his comments:
Ann Neumann, writing on the Otherspoon blog, has stated in the past that she's inclined to shy away from direct criticism of disability rights groups like NDY in the "right to die" debate, seeing it as "a trap."

Neumann found a way around the "trap" last week by quoting someone else's work. Specifically, she quoted a "hit and miss" attempt at analysis of the impact of the disability rights movement in Canada published in the Vancouver Sun.

Here's the relevant portion of the article in regard to assisted suicide and euthanasia, which Neumann also shares on her blog:

The battle for disabled rights has had other unpredicted twists and turns.

One of them is over the so-called "right to die." As advocates for the disabled have continued battling for recognition, they have clashed with people who want laws in Canada and the U.S. permitting assisted suicide for those with severe disabilities and terminal conditions.

Even though polls show the majority of Canadians support regulated euthanasia, disability rights activists have strongly lobbied politicians to make sure no one, regardless of the severity of their disability, should be able to choose an assisted suicide.

In this increasingly bitter debate, disabled activists claim legalizing assisted suicide would be an ethical "slippery slope" that would lead to all disabled people, no matter the degree of their impairment, being devalued as human beings.

In turn, advocates for assisted suicide maintain the arguments of disabled-rights activists are a misplaced over-reaction to their proposals.

American readers should take careful note of the specific wording. The debate in Canada is not limited to advocacy of assisted suicide or euthanasia for the "terminally ill" alone. As I'll get to in a bit, it's not even limited to those who ask to die.

All the more curious that she'd highlight this, since one of her criticisms in her previous post responding (sort of) to Not Dead Yet, contained this:

As to the provision of rights to one group infringing on the rights of another, that's just bad thinking too. Giving a mentally-sound, terminal patient with less than six the right to a lethal prescription that they may or may not choose to take when death approaches has nothing to do with the disabled community. Again, I sympathize with the fear and vulnerability the disabled community feels toward the medical industry, the state, and society. But conflating two separate issues is just bad advocacy. With a little (understandable) paranoia thrown in.

Paranoia? Certainly not in Canada.

See, the reporter at the Vancouver Sun didn't do his homework. The one single case that galvanized the disability community in Canada in regard to this issue was the murder of a disabled 12-year-old girl by her father, who claimed it was a "mercy killing" after failing to pass her death off as a natural one. Robert Latimer, who gassed his daughter Tracy in the cab of his truck, had many defenders - including members of the "right to die" movement in Canada.

Ruth von Fuchs, current president of the Right to Die Society of Canada, had some pretty unambiguous quotes during the trial of Robert Latimer:

Proponents of euthanasia say that, until proper legal and social supports are in place, many people, like Latimer, have to take the law into their own hands. "This law is being written unofficially in emergency rooms and intensive care wards every night," says Ruth von Fuchs, a member of the Right to Die Society in Toronto. Von Fuchs views Tracy's death as part of a "continuum" that begins with brain-damaged infants, some so severely handicapped that doctors quietly remove life support within hours of birth. It is unfortunate, she adds, that because mercy killing has been "criminalized," Latimer felt he had to act alone, without the help of a social worker or medical expert. Von Fuchs, and other members of the euthanasia movement, is calling for a change in attitude to mercy killing. "In our society, we forbid people to give up," she argues. "We say, 'Never say die,' but sometimes you have to stand back and realize that really is a cliché. We cannot fix everyone every time forever."

You want a clearer statement from a leader in the Canadian "right to die" movement? Here is an excerpt from a 1997 NY Times article quoting the late Marilyn Seguin, then the executive director of of the Canadian group Dying with Dignity:

Marilynne Seguin, executive director of Dying With Dignity, a Toronto-based group promoting freedom of choice for physician-assisted deaths, said that the Latimers had already lived under a sentence during the 12 years that Tracy was alive and that to add the 10-year punishment "is quite unconscionable." (emphasis added.)

Going back to the original article, opposition of disability rights activists - and mistrust of the motives of euthanasia advocates - might seem less like an "overreaction" and more an appropriate reaction with more information.

The Vancouver Sun reporter failed to supply a full context for the nature of the real debate here - through laziness, sloppiness or reasons unknown. Whether Neumann found this appealing due to true ignorance or a simple wish to use misinformation is anyone's guess. But even with the limited information available in the article, she certainly can't accuse disability activists of conflating "terminal illness" with "disability." Disability is openly on the agenda of the euthanasia proponents in Canada.

It is here in the US as well. The larger organizations just favor an incrementalist approach and are a little embarrassed by the recently publicized more radical activities of the Final Exit Network. --Stephen Drake

Link to the comments on the Not Dead Yet blog:
http://notdeadyetnewscommentary.blogspot.com/2010/03/ann-neumann-and-vancouver-sun-dissing.html

Final Exit Advisory Board Members Supporters of Parents Who Kill -- Their Disabled Kids

Stephen Drake, the research analyst for Not Dead Yet is exposing the leaders of the Final Exit Network (FEN) through his research. Drake is exposing leaders of FEN by there comments about cases in the past whereby a child with a disability was killed by a parent.

He specifically refers to Ruth von Fuchs who supported Robert Latimer who was convicted of second degree murder for killing his daughter Tracy. Tracy had cerebral palsy. He also refers to Faye Girsh who as the executive director of the Hemlock Society released a press release concerning the David Rodriguez case in 1997.

Stephen Drake made these comments on his blog:
In case you thought that the so-called "right to die" movement was limited to support for voluntary euthanasia, we have some info on related activities of two of the advisory board members of the Final Exit Network. In addition, these two FEN advisors have cosigned an appeal for donations to a defense fund for the arrestees from FEN.

First up is Ruth von Fuchs, whose creds are listed this way on the FEN website:

Ruth von Fuchs, MA
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Founding Network Board Member
President, Right to Die Society of Canada
Member of Network Training Faculty
Board Member, ERGO (Euthanasia and Research Guidance organization)

Canadian disability activists are familiar with Ms. von Fuchs. She has been a vocal defender of Robert Latimer, convicted twice of 2nd-degree murder of his daughter Tracy. Tracy had cerebral palsy and cognitive disabilities. Part of her defense has entailed treating the parental murders of children as "compassionate" and subject to lesser penalties - or to no prosecution at all. Here is a sample of her "advocacy" in the Latimer case:

Proponents of euthanasia say that, until proper legal and social supports are in place, many people, like Latimer, have to take the law into their own hands. "This law is being written unofficially in emergency rooms and intensive care wards every night," says Ruth von Fuchs, a member of the Right to Die Society in Toronto. Von Fuchs views Tracy's death as part of a "continuum" that begins with brain-damaged infants, some so severely handicapped that doctors quietly remove life support within hours of birth. It is unfortunate, she adds, that because mercy killing has been "criminalized," Latimer felt he had to act alone, without the help of a social worker or medical expert. von Fuchs, and other members of the euthanasia movement, is calling for a change in attitude to mercy killing. "In our society, we forbid people to give up," she argues. "We say, 'Never say die,' but sometimes you have to stand back and realize that really is a cliché. We cannot fix everyone every time forever."

Faye Girsh is another advisory board member of FEN - and one with a history of defending NONvoluntary killing of kids with disabilities and elderly people with alzheimers. Here is the info for Girsh as it's featured on the FEN website:

Faye Girsh, EdD.,
Sr. Advisor LaJolla, CA
Founding Network Board Member
Exit Guide and Network spokesperson
Board member/editor, World Federation of Right to Die Societies
Former president of The Hemlock Society USA

Those of us who have been in the euthanasia struggle for over a decade are very familiar with just how wide an agenda Girsh advocates. On December 3, 1997 the Hemlock Society (now Compassion and Choices) issued a press release titled: "Mercy Killing: A Position Statement Regarding David Rodriguez." The release is almost entirely composed of one long statement by Girsh, who was executive director of the Hemlock Society at the time. I don't have a link to the press release. After reading it, no one will be surprised that the Hemlock Society and its successor organization (Compassion and Choices) prefer to pretend this document never existed. Those of us who received the press release in our electronic newsfeeds made sure to save our copies. Here it is below, in its entirety (with portions emphasized by me):

Mercy Killing: A Position Statement Regarding David Rodriguez

DENVER, Dec. 3 /PRNewswire/ -- The following statement is issued to Louisiana media by Faye Girsh, executive director of the Hemlock Society USA, the nation's oldest and largest right-to-die society, regarding the David Rodriguez case:

"The Hemlock Society USA advocates that a suffering person at the end of life should be able to receive compassionate help from a physician to end his or her life if that is the wish. This should be done lawfully and under conditions which ensure that the diagnosis is correct, the request is an enduring one, and that the person is mentally competent."

"Unfortunately, our proposal has been enacted as law in only one state -- Oregon. Even with such a law, there are many people suffering from chronic and terminal illnesses who either beg to have their lives ended or who are not competent to make this decision and are in those instances assisted to die by a loved one. In a few rare instances death has come this way with the help of a friend, family member, or physician. In Louisiana, David Rodriguez shot his father who had repeatedly begged to be killed so that he would no longer suffer. Cases such as this are prosecuted either under murder or assisted suicide statutes. Juries, who see these as crimes of compassion, are at a loss to render a just and appropriate verdict under existing law."

"We suggest that, if these cases are to be prosecuted, they should be treated as special crimes of compassion and evaluated separately. The criteria might include the person's wishes to die, the person's medical condition, the family's concurrence, the alternatives available, and the motives of the person being tried. In many of these cases the person who did the killing is a distraught family member who is put through the horrors and expense of a humiliating criminal process that eventuates in probation or a suspended sentence. There should be a way which would still protect innocent people from being murdered but also take into consideration that mercy killing is not a cold-blooded, malicious crime but one in which the motivation is kindness and relief of suffering."

"In the case of a minor or an incompetent adult, the law now allows life or death decisions to be made by a designated health care agent and/or a family member in most jurisdictions. If the Rodriguez death had been the result of a decision to forego life-sustaining medical treatment no criminal liability would have ensued. In such instances, the person "dies naturally."

Some provision should be made for a situation in which life is not being sustained by artificial means but, in the belief of the patient or his agent, is too burdensome to continue. It is pathetic that a son should have to shoot a suffering father. Death should come in a more humane and less violent way."

"A judicial determination should be made when it is necessary to hasten the death of an individual whether it be a demented parent, a suffering, severely disable (sic) spouse or a child. Consultants should evaluate what other ways might be used to alleviate the suffering and, if none are available or are unsuccessful, a non-violent, gentle means should be available to end the person's life."

"As life expectancy increases, chronic diseases proliferate and medical science can lengthen life almost indefinitely. We must find ways to provide help to people who wish to hasten the dying process. Clearly the popular sentiment is not to punish and incarcerate but to provide merciful alternatives for those who act out of love."

SOURCE Hemlock Society USA
12/03/97 /CONTACT: Don Blake of Hemlock Society USA, 800-247-7421

So if anyone thought that the latest episode with FEN and its advocacy of "facilitating" deaths of NON terminally ill people was as far out as this movement goes - you ain't seen nothing yet. Not only is the "advocacy" of zealots of Girsh and von Fuchs broader than terminal -- the idea of "voluntary" is somewhat quaint in that weird mental world they live in. --Stephen Drake

Link to the original blog comment:
http://notdeadyetnewscommentary.blogspot.com/2009/03/final-exit-advisory-board-members.html