[go: nahoru, domu]

Monday, June 10, 2013

Pushing elder suicide

The following article is written by Wesley Smith and published on his blog under the title: Pushing Elder Suicide in Slate. Elder abuse prevention day is June 15. The promotion of elder suicide is an ultimate form of elder abuse.

Wesley Smith
By Wesley Smith - June 7, 2013

As we are in the midst of an elder-suicide crisis, we see elder suicide promoted within the assisted suicide movement and its camp followers in the media.

Now, continuing the recent pattern, the 2002 joint elder suicides of Admiral Chester Nimitz, Jr. and his wife Joan has been extolled in Slate. Euthanasia activist, Dr. Lewis. M. Cohen recounts how the Nimitzs’ killed themselves together. Members of the Hemlock Society, neither were terminally ill but experiencing the usual circumstances of octogenarians. According to Cohen, these suicides were, “Deaths With Dignity.” From the piece:
Nurses were employed at their home to attend to Joan Nimitz’s worsening health problems, but the couple did not want to squander all of their money on such care. They were both appalled at the vast sums spent at the end of life to sustain people who were frail and sick and not likely to get better. They could clearly envision–and they rejected–the idea of spending their remaining years in a nursing facility. The admiral particularly worried his heart condition might suddenly worsen and his wife would be unable to commit suicide by herself. Joan Nimitz confided to the children that she, too, feared that without her husband’s help, she would not be in a position to ingest the barbiturate pills they had been stockpiling. The admiral told his daughter, “That’s the one last thing I have to do for your mother.”
Lewis M. Cohen
It is appalling that such attitudes should be extolled rather than mourned. Anyone who loves and/or cares for elderly parents, aunts, uncles, siblings, friends, cousins, or others should understand that their loved ones are imperiled by such advocacy as explicitly promotes elder suicide as empowering and somehow the most “dignified”–at a time when elderly people worry about becoming burdens–which is our fault, not theirs. 

But this is where assisted suicide advocacy aims, with the terminal illness limitation being just a political ploy to get people to accept the principle that killing is an acceptable answer to the problems of suffering. As the Admiral’s daughter–fully supportive of her parents’ suicides–admits: 
Van Dorn appreciates that the [Vermont] law would not have directly helped her parents, as neither had a “terminal” disease. She understands that a civil rights movement, such as death with dignity, takes politically expedient and incremental steps. She anticipates that in the future the infirmities and suffering of advanced age may also qualify people to request this option (as is presently true in Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands). Meanwhile, one more American state will allow its citizens further control at the end of life. And Van Dorn is looking forward to the day “when kids and their parents will regularly sit around the dining room table and talk about end-of-life issues the way you talk about college planning. Because, after all it is just another kind of planning.”
In other words, planning suicides over coffee.

So, where is the Suicide Prevention Community? Silent! Perhaps afraid of being controversial–which never stops the pro-suicide crowd–they gently discuss suicide prevention, often in the narrowest of terms, and certainly rarely (if ever) publicly opposing assisted suicide. Indeed, usually the topic isn’t mentioned. Meanwhile, suicide promotion is growing increasingly brazen–which substantially explains why each year invisible Suicide Prevention Day comes and goes, making nary a ripple.

Saturday, June 8, 2013

Beware of Vultures: Assisted Suicide advocacy group is the highest spending lobbyist in Montana.

An article written by Senator Jennifer Fielder (R) - (Montana State Senate District 7) on June 4, 2013 examined the amount of money that was spent by lobby groups to influence the Montana legislature.
Senator Jennifer Fielder

The article by Senator Fielder stated:
As we wrangled through the budget this spring, the beautiful state capitol began to feel like a big, ripe carcass with a dark cloud of vultures circling about. 
The magnitude of money in government attracts far more folks who want to be on the receiving end than it does those who just want fair and functional government. Until that ratio improves, it may be impossible to rein in unnecessary regulation and spending. 
Special interest groups spent over $6 million dollars on lobbyists to pressure Montana legislators during the 2013 session. Seems like a lot of money, until you compare it to the billions of taxpayer dollars at stake. Does the average taxpayer stand a chance against organized forces like that? 
As your Senator one of my main duties is to sort out who wants your money, or a change in a law, and why. Getting to the bottom of it takes work. ... 
We have to be careful not to be fooled by catchy slogans, shallow campaign propaganda, biased media reports, or plays on our emotions which, too often, conceal a multitude of hidden agendas.

For example, it seems odd that the top lobby spender in Montana this year was Compassion and Choices, a “nonprofit” group that spent $160,356 advocating for legalization of assisted suicide. The second biggest spender was MEA-MFT, the teachers and public employees union who spent $120,319 pushing for state budget increases. 
I earned a reputation for asking a lot of questions. I certainly didn’t take this job to rubber stamp anything. It's my duty to determine whether a proposal relates to an essential, necessary service of fair and functional government, or if it is motivated by piles of money to be gained from ill-advised government decisions. 
You see, there is so much money in government that almost everything in government is about the money. The usual tactic is to disguise a ploy as “the humane thing to do”. . . .  
Some groups work very hard to provide factual information about their issue. Others stoop to the lowest of lows to invoke heart wrenching emotions, twisted half-truths, or outright lies. You really have to look carefully for all the angles. 
Assisted suicide is another issue that can be highly emotional. There are deep and valid concerns on both sides of this life and death debate. But I found myself wondering, “Where does all the lobby money come from?” If it really is about a few terminally ill people who might seek help ending their suffering, why was more money spent on promoting assisted suicide than any other issue in Montana? 
Could it be that convincing an ill person to end their life early will help health insurance companies save a bundle on what would have been ongoing medical treatment? How much would the government gain if it stopped paying social security, Medicare, or Medicaid on thousands of people a few months early? How much financial relief would pension systems see? Why was the proposed law to legalize assisted suicide [SB 220] written so loosely? Would vulnerable old people be encouraged to end their life unnecessarily early by those seeking financial gain?  
When considering the financial aspects of assisted suicide, it is clear that millions, maybe billions of dollars, are intertwined with the issue being marketed as “Compassion and Choices”. Beware. 
Public issues are not easy, and they are not always about money. But often times they are. If we want fair and functional government, we need to look deeper than most people are willing to look.. . .
Originally published as Communication from Your State Senator, under the title: "Beware of Vultures," by Montana State Senator Jennifer Fielder, Sanders County Ledger, http://www.scledger.net, page 2, 6-4-13. 

Senator Fielder lives in Thompson Falls MT, representing Montana State Senate District 7.

Friday, June 7, 2013

Quebec doctors promise to fight euthanasia bill.

An article that is written by Giuseppe Valiante and published by the Sun News Network on June 7, is reporting on how a group of Quebec doctors plan to fight a euthanasia bill that is expected to be introduced in the Quebec National Assembly next week.

Dr Paul Saba
The Sun Media article stated:
 A prominent Quebec physician called upcoming euthanasia legislation a "scam" and said that if it becomes law, doctors across the province will take the government to court. 
Montreal-based family doctor Paul Saba, who is also head of the Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice, told QMI Agency Friday said the government's bill "skips palliative care and goes straight to death." 
He is one of over 500 Quebec doctors who signed a manifesto entitled: Total Refusal of Euthanasia Declaration. 
Public Health Minister Veronique Hivon wants to table a euthanasia bill in Quebec's legislature in the next few days, her spokeswoman, Laurie Comtois, said. 
The legislation is reportedly based on a 2012 report that recommended "medical aid in dying." 
Saba said he had no faith the Quebec government will commit sufficient resources for terminally ill patients to make a fair and honest choice regarding end-of-life care. 
He claimed palliative care in Quebec is so severely underfunded that given the choice of death or continuing to live with pain, many sick patients will choose to die. 
Saba said he'll fight any future law allowing euthanasia. 
"(Quebec doctors) will continue to practice medicine (if the euthanasia law is passed) and we'll be fighting in the courts."
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition supports the direction of the Physicians for the Total Refusal of Euthanasia in Quebec.

Respond to the Quebec government euthanasia bill

Letter Writing Campaign
The Quebec government will introduce a bill to legalize euthanasia.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is asking you to use the following talking points when writing a letter to the editor.

1. Deaths without consent or other abuses will occur. Do not legalize euthanasia, it is not safe. Link to an article

2. People with disabilities, people living with depression and elderly people who are dependent on others are medically vulnerable. Prohibiting euthanasia is an effective way to prevent elder abuse and the abuse of people with disabilities.

3. Euthanasia is a direct and intentional act to cause the death of another person. Euthanasia is a form of homicide. Euthanasia is not healthcare and killing is not caring. Link to an article.

Dear friends of the Physicians' Alliance for Total Refusal of Euthanasia.

The bill to legalize euthanasia will be tabled in the National Assembly. 

I propose that each of us write a 100 to 200 word letter denouncing the bill to the newspaper of his/her choice, today as soon as the bill is tabled. Or if it is delayed a few days, the same day it is tabled. Each one from his/her own point of view, taking into account your personal experience. You could prepare it ahead of time and then adjust it as necessary. The e-mail addresses for letters to the editor of the major newspapers are listed below.

The Globe and Mail: NHassan@globeandmail.com
La Presse: debats@lapresse.ca
Le Journal de Québec: commentaires@journaldequebec.com
Le Journal de Montréal: jdm.transmission@quebecormedia.com
Journal Metro: opinions@journalmetro.com
London Free Press: letters@lfpress.com

Physicians' Alliance for Total Refusal of Euthanasia - http://totalrefusal.blogspot.ca/

Chers amis du Collectif de médecins du Refus médical de l'euthanasie: 
Il est probable que le projet de loi pour légaliser l'euthanasie sera déposé à l'Assemblée nationale demain. 
Je propose que chacun de nous écrive une lettre de 100 à 200 mots au journal de son choix aujourd'hui même après le dépôt du projet de loi, pour le dénoncer. Ou s'il est retardé de quelques jours, le jour même du dépôt. Ã‰crivez de votre point de vue et selon votre expérience personnelle. Vous pourriez préparer votre lettre en avance, et l'ajuster par la suite si nécessaire. Vous trouverez ci-dessous les adresses courriel du courrier des lecteurs des journaux principaux.
The Globe and Mail: NHassan@globeandmail.com
La Presse: debats@lapresse.ca
Le Journal de Québec: commentaires@journaldequebec.com
Le Journal de Montréal: jdm.transmission@quebecormedia.com
Journal Metro: opinions@journalmetro.com
London Free Press: letters@lfpress.com
Le Collectif organisera aussi un point de presse. Je vous remercie pour votre appui,
Dr Catherine Ferrier pour
Collectif de médecins du Refus médical de l'euthanasie. http://refusmedical.blogspot.ca/

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Many Quebec doctors are saying no to euthanasia.

Quebec parliament.
The Quebec government will likely introduce legislation to legalize euthanasia within the next few days. Many Quebec doctors are saying no to euthanasia

CTV news reported today about several doctors and patients who oppose euthanasia and whose slogan is: "Killing is not Caring."

The CTV report from June 6, 2013 stated:

The Quebec government could be one of only a handful of places in the world to open the door to doctor-assisted suicide, but one group of doctors is profoundly opposed to the idea, saying what we need is better end-of-life care, not laws on euthanasia.

A committee report released earlier this year will likely become a dying with dignity bill tabled in the National Assembly before summer.

Dr. Paul Saba
“I think most people are concerned about suffering. They don't want to suffer, and that's a real concern. We need to address that,” said Paul Saba, president of the Coalition for Physicians for Social Justice and a vocal advocate against euthanasia.

Saba and his patient Frank Humphrey spoke out Wednesday against the controversial decision some make to end their lives with the assistance of doctors.

In the final stages of ALS, Humphrey’s can’t move or breathe on his own, but he is pain free, he said he wants to live and feels he still has plenty to give.

After months in the hospital, Humphrey is now at home, using a respirator and sleeping in his own bed for as long as he has left.

Frank Humphrey
“Our 35th wedding anniversary is in August and that will be a wonderful time because we'll be together,” said Daria Humphrey, his wife.

“No matter what the College (of Physicians) says, what the government says, it's wrong morally and it's wrong medically and there's going to be abuse,” said Saba.

Ron Olivenstein, a doctor at the Montreal Thoracic Hospital, deals with many patients suffering from neurodegenerative diseases such as ALS and agrees Quebec is far from ready for a debate on euthanasia.
“If assured of proper medical care as they go through the various stages of the disease, they don't ask for something like euthanasia,” he said. 
“The solution is not to pass a law to encourage patients to end their lives prematurely. The solution surely is first to adequately assure excellent medical care for patients in all stages of their disease.”
Quebec Social Services Minister Veronique Hivon plans on tabling a bill before summer that would allow doctors to help some terminally ill patients end their lives. The details remain confidential, but the decision has sparked a passionate and controversial debate.

When the Quebec commission on the issue released its report on dying with dignity in March 2012, many were in favour of the findings.

“We believe that there is some suffering that only death can end,” said Wanda Morris from the group Dying with Dignity last year.

Saba disagrees.

“In the law right now we have the right to refuse treatment, we have the right to stop treatment, the right not to have excessive treatment, so we don't need another law for euthanasia,” he said.

Dr Saba and Dr. Ron Olivenstein are both members of the group: Physicians for the Total Refusal of Euthanasia.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

The Montanans Against Assisted Suicide organize conference on June 29, 2013 in Great Falls Montana.


The Montanans Against Assisted Suicide have organized an interesting and provocative afternoon conference on Saturday June 29, 2013; (1 pm - 4 pm) Registration begins at noon  at the Hilton Garden Inn - 2520 14th St SW, Great Falls Montana. 


Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - International will be the keynote speaker at the conference. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is a barrier to the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia world-wide. Alex Schadenberg is a recognized international expert on assisted suicide and euthanasia. He is a warm, friendly and engaging speaker.

Other speakers include:
Margaret Dore: President - Choice is an Illusion, Washington State Attorney; 
Phil Tummarello: Ret. Police Sergeant Inspector, Stevensville Montana; 
Bradley Williams: President - Montanans Against Assisted Suicide; 
Margaret Dore
Carol Mungas, Great Falls Montana.

Topics:
Margaret Dore: "A Legal Perspective - Is the Baxter decision wrong?"
Phil Tummarello: "A Law Enforcement Perspectives"
Alex Schadenberg: "Assisted Suicide - A Threat to Public Safety"
Carol Mungas and other Voices.

For more information contact Bradley Williams at: 406-531-0937 or bradley@montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org 

Link to the conference poster.

A Simple Way to Reduce Suicides

This article was published, June 2, on the New Times blog and then published in the New York Times, page A21 on June 3. Ezekiel J. Emanuel on health policy and other topics.
Ezekiel J. Emanuel

By Ezekiel J. Emanuel, New York Times, June 2, 2013

Every year about a million Americans attempt suicide. More than 38,000 succeed. In addition, each year there are around 33,000 unintentional deaths by poisonings. Taken together, that’s more than twice the number of people who die annually in car accidents.

The tragedy is that while motor vehicle deaths have been dropping, suicides and poisonings from medications have been steadily rising since 1999. About half of suicides are committed with firearms, and nearly 20 percent by poisoning. A good way to kill yourself is by overdosing on Tylenol or other pills. About 90 percent of the deaths from unintentional poisonings occur because of drugs, and not because of things like household cleaners or bleach.

There is a simple way to make medication less accessible for those who would deliberately or accidentally overdose — and that is packaging.

We need to make it harder to buy pills in bottles of 50 or 100 that can be easily dumped out and swallowed. We should not be selling big bottles of Tylenol and other drugs that are typically implicated in overdoses, like prescription painkillers and Valium-type drugs, called benzodiazepines. Pills should be packaged in blister packs of 16 or 25. Anyone who wanted 50 would have to buy numerous blister packages and sit down and push out the pills one by one. Turns out you really, really have to want to commit suicide to push out 50 pills. And most people are not that committed.


Sound ridiculous? Consider some data.

In September 1998, Britain changed the packaging for paracetamol, the active ingredient in Tylenol, to require blister packs for packages of 16 pills when sold over the counter in places like convenience stores, and for packages of 32 pills in pharmacies. The result: a study by Oxford University researchers showed that over the subsequent 11 or so years, suicide deaths from Tylenol overdoses declined by 43 percent, and a similar decline was found in accidental deaths from medication poisonings. In addition, there was a 61 percent reduction in liver transplants attributed to Tylenol toxicities. (Although it was a long and detailed study, some studies got a different result. One in Ireland, for example, found no reduction in overdoses.)

Not only can blister packs reduce suicide attempts by adults, but also poisonings of children. After the Food and Drug Administration required blister packaging for iron pills, which cause poisoning death in young children, the number of iron-ingestion calls to poison control centers in the country dropped by about 33 percent and the number of deaths went almost to zero.


Why haven’t we seen more blister packages? One reason is money. Manufacturers would have to redesign packaging, and the blister packaging would cost more compared with loose pills in a bottle. The other main reason is that some consumers — notably people with arthritis — might find it challenging to open the packages.


But considering the tens of thousands of deaths and emergency room visits, these reasons seem a bit feeble. The packaging should be changed.

Previous articles concerning suicide that were published on this blog:
- Canadian study proves that the suicide contagion effect exists.
- Suicide rate in Oregon continues to rise faster than the national average.
- Pro-suicide advocacy in the Globe and Mail.

Monday, June 3, 2013

The Dutch kill children with disabilities and people with dementia by euthanasia.

Two for the price of one. Yesterday Wesley Smith published on his blog two excellent articles concerning the Dutch and euthanasia. The Netherlands legalized euthanasia in 2002 after their courts - defacto legalized - euthanasia in 1984. Since then the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands has developed by incremental extension, meaning that the more something becomes acceptable, the more it is allowed.

I use the term incremental extension because the euthanasia lobby tell me that the slippery slope doesn't exist.

The following two articles are about: 
1. Hypocrisy of the Dutch supporting the UN Treaty on Persons with Disabilities while also euthanizing newborns with disabilities, and 
2. Dutch doctors being by the government to euthanize more people with dementia.


Wesley Smith
By Wesley Smith, June 2, 2013

The NYT editorialized today in favor of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, chastising Republicans for blocking USA ratification. That got me to thinking that the Dutch authorities allow doctors to kill babies born with disabilities and I don’t recall a single NYT editorial in defense of those murdered children.

Also, I wondered whether the Dutch have ratified the Convention, which states in part:
States Parties undertake to ensure and promote the full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind on the basis of disability. To this end, States Parties undertake:…b. To take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices that constitute discrimination against persons with disabilities:
And then there is this simple statement:
Article 10 – Right to life States Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.
In answer to my question: Why yes, the Netherlands has ratified the Convention. Hypocrites!

The Netherlands, by permitting doctors to kill disabled babies, is in direct violation of this treaty that the government ratified. No doubt, defenders of Netherlander infanticide would claim that it complies with the part of the treaty requiring states to serve the “best interests” of children with disabilities. But killing is the epitome of prejudice and discrimination, because it denies the chance of the murdered children to have any kind of interests at all.


Wesley Smith
By Wesley Smith, June 2, 2013

It is rare when the government has to push Netherlander doctors to be more aggressive with euthanasia. But that is what is happening around the killing of Alzheimer’s patients based on an advance directive. From the British Medical Journal story:
Senior figures in Dutch medicine and politics are set to decide whether advanced euthanasia directives can, in practice, replace verbal requests if patients with dementia are no longer able to express their wishes. Doctors in the Netherlands have expressed “difficulties” with this “grey area,” arguing that some communication is essential if they are to understand properly their patients’ suffering and wishes. 
But eminent figures in medical ethics argue that doctors are placing themselves above the 2002 euthanasia law. This law states that doctors can act on an earlier advanced directive once a patient becomes incompetent. A public debate has raged on this subject since the Dutch Medical Association, in its response to the government’s latest research assessing euthanasia policy, proposed adapting the law. It suggested that the legally required second medical opinion must not only see but also communicate with the patient. 
Former health minister Els Borst, who piloted the euthanasia law through parliament, has since argued: “A professional body cannot choose its own interpretation of the law.”
But it seems to me the doctors are the ones following the law. What if the patient no longer wants to die? What if the patient isn’t really suffering? The law says killing can be done only when that is required to end suffering. But the government leaders are essentially saying, “What does that matter? The advance directive is what counts!”

The bottom line here is that once a society broadly accepts the poison of euthanasia, the killable categories never stop expanding. Culture of death, Wesley? What culture of death?

Saturday, June 1, 2013

The UK police should be investigating the psychiatrist that Michael Irwin is protecting.

This article is written by Dr. Peter Saunders, the campaign director for the Care Not Killing Alliance in the UK. It was originally published on his blog.

By Peter Saunders - May 30, 2013

Michael Irwin
Peter Saunders
The papers are full of a report (initially carried by the Daily Mirror) about the first British man with dementia to have an assisted suicide at the Dignitas suicide clinic in Zurich, Switzerland.

The BBC is now running the story giving it even wider coverage but it has also been reported by the: Telegraph,  Independent and Daily Mail. I have personally been asked to comment by the BBC, MirrorTimes(£) and Telegraph.

This story (on which I originally commented in March) is in the news because Michael Irwin, who heads up the campaign group SOARS (Society for Old Age Rational Suicide),  gave an exclusive interview to the Daily Mirror reporting that an 83 year old man with early dementia had killed himself at Dignitas seven weeks ago. The Mirror then splashed it on their front page. Now other news outlets are playing catch up in the usual feeding frenzy.

Irwin claims to have ‘helped’ the (unnamed) man in question by referring him to a London psychiatrist (currently also unnamed) who provided him with a medical certificate to say that he was mentally competent enough to make an informed decision about being helped to kill himself.

Irwin believes that assisted suicide should be available to elderly people on demand and seems determined to make himself a martyr for the pro-euthanasia cause by progressively pushing the legal boundaries so this case was very helpful to his cause.

According to the Daily Mirror he now claims to have helped at least 25 people to die at Dignitas.

In 2005 the General Medical Council found him guilty of serious professional misconduct and struck him off the medical register after he admitted supplying sleeping pills to help a friend die although you will seldom see this reported.

Ever since, ironically and curiously, he seems to have escaped prosecution by virtue of the fact that he is no longer a registered medical practitioner. This is in spite of the fact that encouraging or assisting a suicide remains a crime carrying up to a 14 year prison sentence under the Suicide Act 1961.

This is because the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided that he hasn’t yet fulfilled his prosecution criteria. The problem this has created is that Irwin will go on annexing the Sudetenland until he provokes a reaction from the DPP or police because he sees that any reaction will give even more publicity to his cause.

However there is now a new twist to the tale. In deliberately concealing the identity of the London psychiatrist who issued the certificate of mental capacity to this patient Irwin may well now be obstructing the course of justice.

The Director of Public Prosecutions makes it clear that doctors acting in a professional capacity to assist a suicide are likely to be prosecuted and the General Medical Council (GMC) has warned that such doctors risk censure, including being struck off the medical register (see details of DPP and GMC guidelines here). 

That would seem to place the unnamed psychiatrist at risk of both being prosecuted and also losing his licence to practice.

So at very least it would seem that this case should be fully investigated by the police and the GMC.

However on past form I would expect that Irwin will make it extremely difficult for them. He has cleverly, with the media’s full cooperation, created an unsolved mystery that will run and run and ensure that he himself stays in the media spotlight.

The reason for this is that Irwin is actually a campaigner who craves publicity. So he will talk to the media when it suits him but will also withhold incriminating information when it best suits his cause. 

He is playing ‘catch me if you can’.

I suspect he would quite like to be prosecuted to give his cause even more of the oxygen of publicity and will continue to push the envelope more and more until he elicits a response.

Those selling newspapers are of course only too happy to oblige but in the process they risk fuelling more anxiety and suicide contagion amongst the worried well.

What we learn from Irwin is that pro-euthanasia campaigners will always push the boundaries. This is because once you accept the argument that there is such a thing as a life not worth living it is not possible to draft a law to encompass all who would like to fall within its remit without eventually opening it up to everyone.

The minute assisted suicide is allowed for anyone at all others will come using the same arguments of  compassion and autonomy with allegedly equally deserving cases that fall just outside the existing legal boundaries. And they will claim that in the interests of equality they should have access to it too.

And so we see in any jurisdiction where euthanasia or assisted suicide has been legalised that incremental extension steadily takes place (eg OregonBelgiumNetherlands).

First there is a year by year increase in numbers and then, accompanying this, a widening of the categories of people to be included.

First we have mentally competent, adults with less than six months to live (as Dignity in Dying and Lord Falconer are pushing for here). Then there are those who are ‘suffering unbearably’ (in mind or body) but not terminally ill; then minors who are judged capable of making up their own minds; then the mentally incompetent who ‘would have wanted it’ had they been able to say.

Irwin wants assisted suicide to be available not just for those who have early dementia, but for any elderly people who feel that their time has come.

The problem is that one cannot grant the legal right to assisted suicide to any group without at the same time removing legal protection from other similar people.

If the law ever were to change in this country vulnerable people would feel constrained to end their lives for fear of being a burden upon loved ones. Or alternatively loved ones would feel constrained to help their determined elderly relatives.  

This pressure would be felt with real intensity at this time of economic recession when many families are struggling to make ends meet.

Given the number of people and organisations who stand to gain financially from the deaths of elderly people it would be a certain recipe for personal and institutional elder abuse.

People with dementia and their families need the best possible care and support, not campaigns for the removal of their legal protection.

Our current law provides the right balance. On the one hand the penalties it holds in reserve act as a powerful deterrent to exploitation and abuse. On the other hand it gives discretion to prosecutors and judges in dealing with hard cases. It does not need changing.

The odd thing about this whole drama is why this 83 year old man, given his obvious mental capability, did not simply take his own life without requiring assistance.

But then, had he done that, it would not have been an international news story and would not have helped Michael Irwin’s campaign.