Forcing Hospices to do Euthanasia in Canada

This article was published by National Review online today.

By Wesley J Smith

Euthanasia is more than just legal in Canada. It has become a government-guaranteed right.

Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be Forced to do Euthanasia (Link).

But how to guarantee that the legally qualified who want to die are made dead? Unless the government establishes killing centers out of Soylent Green, it will have to coerce doctors into doing the killing — as has been done in Ontario. And, it will have to force medical facilities into allowing euthanasia on premises, whether their administators like it or not.

Such an imposition is now taking place in British Columbia, where the Dignity Hospice board of directors are standing tall for the hospice philosophy of caring — but never killing — by refusing to permit euthanasia in the facililty. In response, the BC Health Minister is threatening to restrict funding in the single-payer system, which, ironically, would undercut the facilities ability to care optimally for their patients who don’t want to be killed. From the Globe and Mail story:

A B.C. hospice society that refuses to provide medical assistance in dying at its facility in violation of local rules has been given until Thursday to submit plans for compliance.

Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be Forced to do Euthanasia (Link).

Health Minister Adrian Dix said the Delta Hospice Society, which operates the Irene Thomas Hospice in Ladner, may face penalties if it fails to do so.

“We’ve asked them … to provide their plan to fulfill their contract with the Fraser Health Authority and it is our expectation that they will,” Mr. Dix said on Wednesday. “Should they not want to fulfill their contract with Fraser Health, there may well be consequences of that.”

It it my understanding that there is a Fraser hospital directly across the street from the hospice where patients are euthanized. It would be easy to move hospice patients who want to have that done to the hospital where they could be put down according to their desire. But even if that weren’t true, so long as the hospice advises patients that euthanasia is not permitted on site, why force the issue? Why threaten to bring financial ruin upon a small, heterodox-managed institution?

Because of the message that Delta sends that euthanasia is morally wrong and an improper way to treat terminally ill patients. That is what burns. Hence, the authoritarian response of the government.

This is both a civil rights issue and a matter of basic compassion. Think about the patient in the next bed who values life and knows that his neighbor is being killed by a doctor. That would be both terrifying and morale destroying because of the cruel message communicated that his life — like that of the neighbor — is no longer deemed worth protecting.

The ongoing assault on medical conscience in Canada demonstrates how the culture of death brooks no dissent. The same thing will happen here if we let the wolf in the door. Those with eyes to see, let them see.

Prolonged painful assisted suicide deaths and human experiments with new lethal drugs cocktails

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article published in the Spring Hill Insider yesterday looks at experiments being done on people to find an effective lethal drug cocktail for assisted suicide. 

The current drug cocktails have caused painful assisted suicide deaths that may take many hours to die.

The article states that assisted suicide researchers are promoting their third generation of lethal drug cocktails. The results of the first two lethal drug cocktails were:

The (first) turned out to be too harsh, burning patients’ mouths and throats, causing some to scream in pain. The second drug mix, used 67 times, has led to deaths that stretched out hours in some patients — and up to 31 hours in one case.

The first two lethal drug cocktail experiments failed to provide a painless, fast death. Remember, these experiments are being done on people.

In February I published the article - assisted dying can cause inhumane deaths based on research by Professor Jaideep Pandit that was published in the British Medical Journal. Pandit researched complications with assisted suicide and capital punishment deaths. The same lethal drugs are used for assisted suicide and capital punishment.

Pandit reports that the complications include:

• difficulty in swallowing the prescribed dose (up to nine per cent) and vomiting in 10 per cent, both of which can prevent proper dosing.
• Re-emergence from a coma occurred in two per cent of cases, with a small number of patients even sitting up during the dying process, the authors said. 
• After oral sedative ingestion, patients usually lose consciousness within five minutes. However, death takes considerably longer. 
• But in a third of cases, death can take up to 30 hours, and some deaths took as many as seven days to occur (four per cent).

It is shocking that New Jersey legalized assisted suicide in March and other states are considering assisted suicide, when people in Oregon are dying long and painful assisted suicide deaths.

The assisted suicide promoters and practitioners developed the lethal drug cocktail by doing human trials rather than animal trials. The team appeared concerned with the lethal efficacy and cost of the lethal drugs as opposed to the possible negative consequences. 

The negative outcomes associated with the lethal drug cocktails and the ethics of human experimentation related to the development of these drugs should cause US government, under the controlled substances act, to stop assisted suicide and prevent human experimentation with these lethal drug cocktails.

The euthanasia lobby is not concerned with a "good" death but rather the cost of the drugs. So much for dying with compassion and dignity.

More articles on this topic:

• What's cruel for incarceration is cruel for the terminally ill. The connection between lethal injection and capital punishment (Link).
• Complications with lethal drugs used for assisted suicide (Link).
• Many assisted suicide deaths are slow and painful (Link).
• Is lethal injection inhumane. Euthanasia execution drug controversy (Link).

Hastening death isn't what hospice is about.

This article was published by OneNewsNow on December 16, 2019

Euthanasia proponents in Canada are targeting a hospice program in what is no doubt hoped to be the start of a domino effect.

Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be Forced to do Euthanasia (Link).

Delta Hospice in British Columbia refuses to kill its patients, as it recognizes a hospice facility is meant to make its patients as comfortable as possible until their natural death. But Frazier Health, the authority that receives funding through the provincial government, has decided that all organizations it sends money to, including Delta, will euthanize patients.

"The board of the Delta Hospice has maintained a position saying that they oppose euthanasia," relays Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. "On top of it, they maintain the position that euthanasia's not compatible with hospice care. Further … part of their articles of incorporation say that they do not hasten death."

Alex Schadenberg

But Frazier Health is warning Delta that maintaining that policy will end their funding, thus shutting down the hospice facility.

"If the Delta Hospice is forced to do euthanasia, then the other hospice organizations that are also holding out … will be in a situation where they will also likely be forced to do euthanasia," Schadenberg warns.

In Delta's case, there is a hospital across the street that does euthanize patients, so the question is why Delta Hospice is being compelled to offer services that are already available nearby.

• BC Health Minister says he will force the Delta Hospice to kill (Link).

US Congress Resolution H.Con.Res.79: Assisted suicide puts everyone at risk of deadly harm.

(Link to the Congressional Resolution H.Con.Res.79)

Expressing the sense of the Congress that assisted suicide (sometimes referred to using other terms) puts everyone, including those most vulnerable, at risk of deadly harm.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 12, 2019

Mr. Correa (for himself, Mr. Wenstrup, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Langevin, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Harris, and Mr. Abraham) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Whereas “suicide” means the act of intentionally ending one’s own life, preempting death from disease, accident, injury, age, or other condition;

Whereas “assisting in a suicide”, sometimes referred to as death with dignity, end-of-life options, aid-in-dying, or similar phrases, means knowingly and willingly prescribing, providing, dispensing, or distributing to an individual a substance, device, or other means that, if taken, used, ingested, or administered as directed, expected, or instructed, will, with reasonable medical certainty, result in the death of the individual, preempting death from disease, accident, injury, age, or other condition;

Whereas society has a longstanding policy of supporting suicide prevention such as through the efforts of many public and private suicide prevention programs, the benefits of which could be denied under a public policy of assisted suicide;

Whereas assisted suicide most directly threatens the lives of people who are elderly, experience depression, have a disability, or are subject to emotional or financial pressure to end their lives;

Whereas the Oregon Health Authority’s annual reports reveal that pain or the fear of pain is listed second to last (25 percent) among the reasons cited by all patients seeking lethal drugs since 1998, while the top 5 reasons cited are psychological and social concerns: “losing autonomy” (92 percent), “less able to engage in activities that make life enjoyable” (90 percent), “loss of dignity” (79 percent), “losing control of bodily functions” (48 percent), and “burden on family friends/caregivers” (41 percent);

Whereas the Supreme Court has ruled twice (in Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill) that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide, that the Government has a legitimate interest in prohibiting assisted suicide, and that such prohibitions rationally relate to “protecting the vulnerable from coercion” and “protecting disabled and terminally ill people from prejudice, negative and inaccurate stereotypes, and ‘societal indifference’”;

Whereas clearly expressing that assisted suicide is not a legitimate health care service, Congress passed, with a nearly unanimous vote, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act to prevent the use of Federal funds for any item or service, including advocacy, provided for the purpose of causing, or assisting in causing, the death of any individual such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing;

Whereas a handful of States have authorized assisted suicide, but over 30 States have rejected over 200 attempts at legalization since 1994;

Whereas States that authorize assisted suicide for terminally ill patients do not require that such patients receive psychological screening or treatment, though studies show that the overwhelming majority of patients contemplating suicide experience depression;

Whereas the laws of such States contain no requirement for a medical attendant to be present at the time the lethal dose is taken, used, ingested, or administered to intervene in the event of medical complications;

Whereas such State laws contain no requirement that a qualified monitor be present to assure that the patient is knowingly and voluntarily taking, using, ingesting, or administering the lethal dose;

Whereas such State laws contain no requirement to secure lethal medication if unwanted or if death occurs before such medication is used;

Whereas such State laws do not prevent family members, heirs, or health care providers from pressuring patients to request assisted suicide;

Whereas such States qualify some patients for assisted suicide by using a broad definition of “terminal disease” and “going to die in six months or less” that includes diseases (such as diabetes or HIV) that, if appropriately treated, would not otherwise result in death within six months;

Whereas it is extremely difficult even for the most experienced doctors to accurately prognosticate a six-month life expectancy as required, making such a prognosis a prediction, not a certainty;

Whereas reporting requirements vary by State, but when required, rely on prescribing physicians or dispensing pharmacists to self-report;

Whereas such reporting is neither conducted by an objective third party nor of sufficient depth and accuracy to effectively monitor the occurrence of assisted suicide;

Whereas there is an astounding lack of transparency in the practice of assisted suicide to the extent that State health departments and other authorities admittedly have no method of knowing if it is being practiced within the bounds of State laws and have no funding or authority to make such a determination;

Whereas some State laws actively conceal assisted suicide by directing the physician to list the cause of death as the underlying condition without reference to death by suicide;

Whereas the confidential nature of end-of-life decisions makes it virtually impossible to effectively monitor a physician’s behavior to prevent abuses, making any number of safeguards insufficient;

Whereas the cost of lethal medication is far less costly than many life-saving treatments, which threatens to restrict treatment options, especially for disadvantaged and vulnerable persons, as has happened in several known cases and presumably many more unknown in which insurers have denied or delayed coverage for life-saving care while offering to cover assisted suicide;

Whereas access to personal assistance services such as in-home hospice and palliative care, home health care aides, and nursing care/nursing assistance is regretfully limited and subject to long waiting lists in many areas, placing systemic pressure on patients in need of such personal assistance services to resort to assisted suicide; and

Whereas for all these reasons, assisted suicide undermines the integrity of the health care system: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the Federal Government should ensure that every person facing the end of their life has access to the best quality and comprehensive medical care, including palliative, in-home, or hospice care, tailored to their needs and that the Federal Government should not adopt or endorse policies or practices that support, encourage, or facilitate suicide or assisted suicide, whether by physicians or others.

Euthanasia of people with dementia. Medpage "ethics consult"

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Last week, Medpage Today posted an "Ethics Consult" concerning euthanasia of a person with dementia.

The consult was based on the euthanasia death of a Dutch woman who requested euthanasia in her advanced directive, but then resisted and said NO at the time of the euthanasia. The physician put a sedative in her coffee, to settle her down, but the woman continued to resist so the physician had the family hold her down as she was lethally injected. A Dutch court decided that the euthanasia had been carried out with proper care and cleared the doctor of all charges.

The Medpage consult had more than 5100 physicians respond. Medpage asked: 

On the day of the determined death, the patient became agitated to the point of screaming and pushing the physician away when he approached. It became clear that she would need to be sedated and physically restrained to administer the lethal injection.

1 Do you proceed with the euthanasia?

750 physicians responded YES and 4,400 physicians NO.

I am concerned that 750 physicians responded YES, nonetheless, a strong majority responded NO.

Canada is considering extending euthanasia to people with dementia, who made a previous request. 

In Canada euthanasia is done by physicians or nurse practitioners who lethally inject the person. Canada's criminal code recognizes this as a form of homicide but the government provided an exception to homicide when two doctors or nurse practitioners agree that the person qualifies for euthanasia. Nonetheless this is homicide.

I oppose creating exceptions to homicide/murder, but in this case the person is incapable of consenting at the time of death. Therefore the defense of consent, which the law requires, is not possible.

Secondly, when a person is declared incompetent they legally unable to change their legal documents, such as a Power of Attorney (Living Will). Therefore incompetent people are legally unable to change their minds.

If euthanasia is permitted based on a statement in a Power of Attorney document, the physician or nurse practitioner would be able to lethally inject (euthanasia) the person even if the person had changed their mind.

* Protect your life by purchasing the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care (Link).

The fact that Canada is debating this issue proves that euthanasia is deceptive and fatally flawed, nonetheless, euthanasia for people with dementia should be rejected.

The Economist Swoons over Death Doctor & His Suicide Machine

This article was published by National Review online on December 13, 2019.

By Wesley Smith

The mainstream media mostly went head over heels over Jack Kevorkian’s ghoulish assisted suicide campaign, rarely mentioning that his ultimate goal was to gain the right to conduct human vivisection on people being euthanized.

The Australian Kevorkian — Philip Nitschke — hasn’t advocated that. But he has traveled the world teaching people how to commit suicide, published a suicide recipe he invented made of common household ingredients, and pushed a pernicious death-on-demand philosophy. Now The Economist swoons over “the bad boy of the euthanasia movement,” touting his new suicide pod machine in a profile of a length few presidents have received. From, “A Design for Death:”

My host’s name is Philip Nitschke and he’s invented a machine called Sarco. Short for sarcophagus, the slick, spaceship-like pod has a seat for one passenger en-route to the afterlife. It uses nitrogen to enact a pain-free, peaceful death from inert-gas asphyxiation at the touch of a button. With the help of his wife and colleague, the writer and lawyer Dr Fiona Stewart, Nitschke is ushering the death-on-demand movement towards a dramatic new milestone – and their enthusiasm is palpable.

And he’s such a jolly fellow!

Nitschke and Stewart are much jollier than you’d expect the right-to-die movement’s only power couple to be. They’re full of – well – joie de vivre and arch banter about everything from Brexit to the roadworks that have denuded the front of their home of a beloved creeper. “If it’s not dead, boy is it doing a bloody good impression of being dead,” observes Nitschke, correctly.

And he’s so good at the suicide sales pitch!

It’s undeniable that Nitschke’s campaigns have exhibited a certain PR-savvy pizzazz. He is the originator, no less, of the euthanasia flash mob, which took place to celebrate his 70th birthday and 20 years of Exit International (soundtrack: Bon Jovi’s “It’s My Life”, naturally). When he announced plans for Sarco, it was dismissed by some, says Nitschke, as “a stunt, or some virtual creation in someone’s mind that didn’t have any prospect of physical reality.”

I can attest that the machine exists, having had the singular experience of reclining on a prototype at Nitschke’s workshop on an industrial estate in Hillegom, South Holland, amidst the incongruous spring blaze of the tulip fields. Plus, scratch the surface of his provocative patter and there’s a person – a patient – lurking behind each of his convictions.

I think we should be very clear about who, exactly, The Economist is touting. Nitschke, the nihilist, told NRO’s Katherine Jean Lopez that he wants suicide pills made available in supermarkets. Katherine asked Nitschke whether they should be available to “troubled teens.” Why, yes, he said. From Katherine’s NRO interview:

My personal position is that if we believe that there is a right to life, then we must accept that people have a right to dispose of that life whenever they want. (In the same way as the right to freedom of religion has implicit the right to be an atheist, and the right to freedom of speech involves the right to remain silent). I do not believe that telling people they have a right to life while denying them the means, manner, or information necessary for them to give this life away has any ethical consistency.

So all people qualify, not just those with the training, knowledge, or resources to find out how to “give away” their life. And someone needs to provide this knowledge, training, or recourse necessary to anyone who wants it, including the depressed, the elderly bereaved, [and] the troubled teen. If we are to remain consistent and we believe that the individual has the right to dispose of their life, we should not erect artificial barriers in the way of sub-groups who don’t meet our criteria.

Nitschke has taught elderly people how to get animal euthanasia drugs to use on themselves. He has repeatedly lied about those he counseled on suicide, such as that of Nancy Crick, who Nitschke falsely claimed to the media that she had terminal cancer. Nitschke wasn’t near her when she died to avoid criminal his own culpability, but his fans were — and they applauded when she swallowed the pills. When I traveled to Australia in 2001 to expose him about the above-quoted interview with Katherine, he accused me of lying in the media. He also used to sell plastic suicide bags to suicidal people until stopped by the Australian government.

The man is thoroughly reprehensible. No wonder the mainstream media is attracted to him like a magnet to metal. They love their transgressives!

BC Health Minister says he will force the Delta Hospice to kill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be Forced to do Euthanasia (Link).

The BC Health Minister, Adrian Dix, declared yesterday that the BC government will take action if the Delta hospice refuses to kill its patients.

Adrian Dix has suggested that they will stop funding the 10 bed Delta Hospice if it refuses to kill.

On December 2, I reported that the Board of the Delta BC Hospice Society that operates the Irene Thomas Hospice in Ladner BC, renewed its position opposing euthanasia (MAiD) while supporting excellent care. The Board stated:

MAiD is not compatible with the Delta Hospice Society purposes stated in the society's constitution, and therefore, will not be performed at the Irene Thomas Hospice.

In its recent Call to Action, the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians stated that MAiD (euthanasia) is not part of hospice palliative care. They stated:

MAiD is not part of hospice palliative care; it is not an “extension” of palliative care nor is it one of the tools “in the palliative care basket”. National and international hospice palliative care organizations are unified in the position that MAiD is not part of the practice of hospice palliative care. 

...Hospice palliative care sees dying as a normal part of life and helps people to live and die well. Hospice palliative care does not seek to hasten death or intentionally end life. 

The Delta Optimist newpaper reported, on December 7, that Fraser Health informed the Delta Hospice that their position is at odds with the policy of Fraser Health. A spokesperson for Fraser Health told the Delta Optimist that:

The region noted it fully supports a patient’s right to receive medical assistance in dying wherever they may be, including in a hospice setting.

The position of the Delta Hospice is not new. In February 2018, the Delta Hospice was ordered by Fraser Health to provide euthanasia. The Delta Hospice did not comply with the Fraser Health edict.

If the Delta Hospice closes, the residents of Delta will lose the 10 bed hospice that is known for providing excellent end-of-life care.

If the Delta Hospice is forced to do euthanasia, then all Canadian Hospice groups will be forced to do euthanasia.

Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be Forced to do Euthanasia (Link).

Disability Activist Anita Cameron To Speak At Congressional Briefing On Assisted Suicide

Link to the article published by Not Dead Yet.

Bipartisan Resolution Opposing Assisted Suicide Laws Reintroduced

Anita Cameron

Anita Cameron, director of minority outreach for Not Dead Yet, will speak at a Congressional briefing to be held Thursday, December 12, 2019 in Room 2168 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

The briefing is cosponsored by the National Council on Disability (NCD), Congressman Lou Correa (D-CA) and Congressman Brad Wenstrup (R-OH). This briefing will explore the findings and recommendations of a recent federal study of the country’s assisted suicide laws and their effect on access to health care and other dangers for people with disabilities.

The briefing coincides with this week’s reintroduction of a bipartisan House resolution,

“Expressing the sense of the Congress that assisted suicide (sometimes referred to using other terms) puts everyone, including those most vulnerable, at risk of deadly harm.”

Representative Correa is the lead sponsor, joined by Representative Wenstrup, and additional original cosponsors are Rep. James Langevin (D-RI), Rep. Andy Harris, M.D. (R-MD), Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL), Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), Rep. Ralph Abraham, M.D. (R-LA), Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO), and Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA).

Cameron has often spoken of the risks posed to people of color if assisted suicide becomes normalized in our healthcare system. 

“Due to racial disparities, Blacks and people of color receive inferior healthcare compared to Whites, especially in cardiac care, diabetes and pain management. Blacks are diagnosed with cancer at much later stages and the prognosis is worse,” 

Cameron says. 

“With so much documented healthcare injustice, we should not grant the system a greater license to kill.”

Diane Coleman

NDY’s president and CEO, Diane Coleman, also provided a statement in support of the resolution: 

“As a national, secular, social justice organization, Not Dead Yet strongly supports this bipartisan effort to speak truth to counter the many myths about legalized assisted suicide. As Americans with disabilities, we are on the front lines of the nation’s health care system that too often devalues old, ill, and disabled people. We are deeply concerned that profits are being prioritized over human needs. So we are grateful for this Sense of Congress that explains the dangers of mistake, coercion, and abuse under a public policy of assisted suicide.”

Additional national disability organizations issuing statements this week supporting the resolution include ADAPT, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund and the National Council on Independent Living.

Delta Hospice Must Not Be Forced to do Euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be Forced to do Euthanasia (Link).

In February 2018 the Board

of the Delta BC Hospice was given an Edict from Fraser Health to provide euthanasia (MAiD).

At that time, the Board of the Delta Hospice decided not to do euthanasia and continued its good work.
 

Recently, the Board of the Delta Hospice re-stated its opposition to euthanasia. The new board passed a resolution stating:

MAiD is not compatible with the Delta Hospice Society purposes stated in the society's constitution, and therefore, will not be performed at the Irene Thomas Hospice.

A spokesperson for Fraser Health told the Delta Optimist that:

it fully supports a patient’s right to receive medical assistance in dying wherever they may be, including in a hospice setting.

The order by Fraser Health is contrary to the stated purpose of the Delta Hospice Society constitution.

Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be forced to do Euthanasia (Link).

If funding for the 10 bed hospice is stopped people in the community requiring care at the end of life, will lose the excellent care provided by the Delta Hospice.

By forcing the Delta Hospice to provide euthanasia, Fraser Health is also redefining the meaning of hospice/palliative care.

In its recent Call to Action, the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians stated that MAiD (euthanasia) is not a part of hospice palliative care. They stated:

MAiD is not part of hospice palliative care; it is not an “extension” of palliative care nor is it one of the tools “in the palliative care basket”. National and international hospice palliative care organizations are unified in the position that MAiD is not part of the practice of hospice palliative care. 

...Hospice palliative care sees dying as a normal part of life and helps people to live and die well. Hospice palliative care does not seek to hasten death or intentionally end life. 

If the Delta Hospice is forced to provide euthanasia then all Hospice Palliative Care organizations within Canada can be forced to provide euthanasia.

Hospice/Palliative Care is not MAiD. The Delta Hospice must not be forced to provide MAiD.

Fraser Health is overstepping its role as a health authority in forcing and bullying the Delta Hospice to provide MAiD.

Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be forced to do Euthanasia (Link).

Western Australia Legalizes Lethal Injection Euthanasia

This article was published by National Review online on December 10, 2019.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

The euthanasia darkness seeps into Western Australia. From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation story:

Under the scheme, to be eligible a person would have to be terminally ill with a condition that is causing intolerable suffering and is likely to cause death within six months, or 12 months for a neurodegenerative condition. 

A person would have to make two verbal requests and one written request. Those requests would have to be signed off by two doctors who are independent of each other. 

The choice of lethal medication would be a clinical decision from an approved list of drugs. Self-administration would be the preferred method, but in a departure from the Victorian regime, a patient could choose for a medical practitioner to administer the drug.

“Intolerable suffering” has no objective test. It is whatever a patient says it is — even if the illness is not the reason for the suicide/homicide request.

Where will this lead? Over time, into the bottomless moral pit into which the Netherlands, Belgium, and increasingly Canada have already jumped.

I can’t escape the irony that people seem to lack faith in doctors to care for patients properly and ameliorate their suffering, but ironically, will allow these same doctors to kill them. Bizarre.

Delta Hospice ordered by Fraser Health to do euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Delta Hospice

On December 2, I reported that the Board of the Delta BC Hospice Society that operates the Irene Thomas Hospice in Ladner BC, renewed its position opposing euthanasia (MAiD) while supporting excellent care. The Board stated that:

MAiD is not compatible with the Delta Hospice Society purposes stated in the society's constitution, and therefore, will not be performed at the Irene Thomas Hospice.

Fraser Health, the government agency that allocates health funding in that region reacted to the Delta Hospice Society by ordering them to provide MAiD (euthanasia).

Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be forced to do Euthanasia (Link).

The Delta Optimist newpaper reported, on December 7, that Fraser Health informed the Delta Hospice that their position is at odds with the policy of Fraser Health.

A spokesperson for Fraser Health told the Delta Optimist that:

The region noted it fully supports a patient’s right to receive medical assistance in dying wherever they may be, including in a hospice setting.

The Delta Optimist also reported that the lobby group, Dying With Dignity, also believes that the Delta Hospice should be forced to do euthanasia:

Alex Muir with the Vancouver chapter of Dying with Dignity Canada called the new board’s vote to repeal MAiD disappointing, adding his group believes Delta Hospice should be forced to abide by Fraser Health policy that MAiD be provided in all non-faith-based facilities under its jurisdiction.

Muir then added that Dying With Dignity considers palliative care and MAiD to be essential options on a spectrum of care.

Delta Hospice President, Angelina Ireland

The position of the Delta Hospice is not new. In February 2018, the Delta Hospice was ordered by Fraser Health to provide euthanasia. The Delta Hospice did not comply with the edict from Fraser Health at that time.

Recently the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association (CHPCA) and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians released a joint statement upholding that hospice palliative care is not compatible with MAiD (euthanasia). They stated:

Healthcare articles and the general media continue to conflate and thus misrepresent these two fundamentally different practices. MAiD is not part of hospice palliative care; it is not an “extension” of palliative care nor is it one of the tools “in the palliative care basket”. National and international hospice palliative care organizations are unified in the position that MAiD is not part of the practice of hospice palliative care.

Hospice palliative care and MAiD substantially differ in multiple areas including in philosophy, intention and approach. Hospice palliative care focuses on improving quality of life and symptom management through holistic person-centered care for those living with life threatening conditions. Hospice palliative care sees dying as a normal part of life and helps people to live and die well. Hospice palliative care does not seek to hasten death or intentionally end life.

If the Delta Hospice is forced to do euthanasia, then all Canadian Hospice groups can be forced to do euthanasia.

Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be forced to do Euthanasia (Link).

Are people being coerced to euthanasia?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Last week I had the opportunity to screen the Fatal Flaws film and speak in Victoria, Nanaimo and Campbell River British Columbia. Thank you to the local organizers who made this possible.

This article is about three stories from the three events where I spoke.

The first story was from a woman who spoke to me after the Campbell River presentation. She told me that her father has medical issues and has been offered MAiD on several occasions. She said that her father has never brought up the topic of euthanasia and being offered euthanasia feels like a form of coercion.

The second story was a man whose mother requires dialysis. He said that while his mother was feeling down from her dialysis that a nurse suggested that she consider MAiD. Another person then agreed with this suggestion. He said that his mother didn't bring up the issue of euthanasia and felt coerced by the suggestion. He said that she was feeling depressed and if she did not call him she may have asked for death.

The third story was a woman who told me that she was approved for euthanasia. She appeared to be physically healthy but when speaking to her she seemed to have psychological issues (I am not a professional, this is only my impression).

Now that euthanasia is legal, how are these decisions being made?

Candice Lewis with her mother Sheila

One of the most powerful stories, in the Fatal Flaws film, is the story of Candice Lewis who was pressured by a doctor to ask for assisted death. (Link to the story).

Euthanasia is sold as a form of freedom. In these cases the people felt coerced to ask for euthanasia. In other words, choice can be an illusion.

Western Australia Assisted Dying bill leaves people open to coercion

This article was published by the Sydney Morning Herald on December 9, 2019

By Xavier Symons

Western Australia is set to become the 18th jurisdiction in the world to legalise some form of assisted suicide or euthanasia. Last week its state upper house voted resoundingly in favour of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 24 to 11. A special sitting of the lower house on Tuesday is expected to consider some amendments and then pass it into law.

Labor Premier Mark McGowan has dismissed concerns about the government-sponsored law as “ridiculous”, and has accused opponents of “scaremongering”. He is being unduly sanguine. The Western Australian assisted dying bill is significantly more permissive than the one passed by Victoria in 2017.

Western Australian adults will be eligible for assisted suicide or euthanasia if they have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, have six months or less to live (12 months in the case of neurodegenerative illness), and are suffering in a manner that they deem to be intolerable. A patient must make three requests – two verbal and one in writing – and must be assessed by two medical practitioners.

Unlike Victoria, WA will not require a patient to be assessed by a specialist. Two GPs, for example, could approve a request for euthanasia from a patient with pancreatic cancer or motor neurone disease even if they have never treated patients with these conditions before. Critics warn that non-specialists may provide inaccurate diagnoses and prognoses for terminally ill patients, leading to wrongful deaths. “[If] we get it wrong in relation to a diagnosis, what number [of wrongful deaths] is acceptable?”says former Labor MP Tim Hammond, a vocal opponent of the bill.

Critics also claim that people with mental illness will be at risk. Doctors in Victoria are advised by the state’s legislation to refer patients to a psychiatrist if they have a mental illness that affects their decision-making capacity. The WA bill contains no such provision. Suicide prevention advocate and former SANE Australia director Michael Perrott slammed this oversight, arguing that “we need specially trained people to deal with those who are mentally unwell”.

One hotly debated issue was that the bill will allow doctors to initiate conversations about euthanasia. This is problematic. Doctors may be tempted to suggest the easiest (and cheapest) solution. What if a neurologist proposes euthanasia as “the best option” for a patient diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumour?

This bill exposes patients to undue influence from doctors. In addition, Indigenous groups, culturally and linguistically diverse populations and patients with disabilities may misinterpret a doctor’s words. But it also leaves doctors exposed to pressure from families who want them to recommend euthanasia.

The upper house accepted amendments to an earlier draft, including a clause that ensures that witnesses and practitioners involved in a patient’s application for euthanasia are not beneficiaries of the patient’s will. Yet other amendments were rejected, including provisions for equitable access to palliative care in rural areas and adequate oversight for patients with mental illness.

The method of assisted dying in WA will be either the self-administration of a lethal dose of medication (assisted suicide), or administration of the drug by a medical practitioner (euthanasia). In Victoria, a doctor can only administer the drug if a patient is physically incapable.

This is important. Rates of euthanasia are higher in Canada, for instance, where patients can choose either euthanasia or assisted suicide. There may be a far higher rate of patients in WA choosing to end their lives than most politicians have anticipated.

Victoria’s legislation was described by Premier Daniel Andrews as “the most conservative euthanasia law in the world”. Perhaps the Western Australian bill should be described as the most liberal euthanasia law in Australia. It leaves sick and elderly Australians open to coercion at the most vulnerable moments of their lives.

Xavier Symons is a research associate in the Institute for Ethics and Society at the University of Notre Dame.

Another Australian state on the verge of legalising euthanasia

This article was published by Mercatornet on December 6, 2019.

By Richard Egan

At 4:11pm on Thursday, 5 December 2019, the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2019 passed its third reading vote in the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia by a decisive vote of 24 to 11.

Only one member changed her vote between the second and third readings: Labor MP Adele Farina.

Adele Farina MP

In her speech explaining her vote Ms Farina highlighted the defeat of a series of amendments designed to address the inherent problems with a law permitting the prescription of a lethal substance for a person to keep at home for self-administration at some later time.

These problems, as identified in Ms Farina’s speech, and during the consideration in detail, include:

• The experimental nature of the lethal substances which could be any Schedule 4 or Schedule 8 poison or combination of these poisons with no scientific assessment of their efficacy or of adverse side effects;
• The reported rate of complications from other jurisdictions of between 5 percent and 17 percent, including regurgitation, seizures, failure to be fully unconscious before asphyxiation or heart attack occurs, lengthy time from ingestion to death, and failure to die; 
• The lack of any requirement for a health practitioner or, indeed any witness, to be present at the time the poison is taken; 
• No system for reporting adverse outcomes even if a medical practitioner or other witness is present; 
• No assessment of the decision-making capacity of the person after the lethal poison is issued (even though it may be kept for months or even years); 
• No way of ensuring that the person is taking the lethal poison voluntarily – the person could be tricked, cajoled or even forced into ingesting it. 

Ms Farina also spoke about the pressure put on her to support the government’s position on the Bill. To her credit she resisted this pressure and voted according to her conscience.

Greens MP Alison Xamon expressed significant concerns with the Bill but was bound by Greens Party policy to support it. She said “I also remain concerned that the safeguards are insufficient. However, with all my heart I hope that my concerns are proven to be without foundation because it will weigh very heavily on my conscience if my concerns ever come to fruition.”

The Minister for the Environment and for Disability Services, Stephen Dawson, who had the carriage of the Bill in the Legislative Council, reported that it had taken 78 hours and 43 minutes to “consider and debate the 184 clauses contained in the bill”. This equates to just 25 minutes and 40 seconds per clause.

This detailed consideration did result in the passage of 55 amendments (25 moved by Nick Goiran, the leading opponent of the Bill; 18 by the government; 4 by Adele Farina and 8 by three other members), which, contrary to the characterisation of euthanasia lobby Go Gently as “mainly grammatical”, dealt with substantial matters. These included:

• Prohibiting a healthcare worker, other than a medical practitioner during a medical consultation, from initiating a discussion on euthanasia or assisted suicide with a person;
• Requiring a medical practitioner who initiates such a discussion to also discuss treatment options and palliative care; 
• Ensuring that medical or nurse practitioners involved in the process are not beneficiaries under the person’s will; and 
• In the case of euthanasia (ie, practitioner administration of a lethal poison) requiring the practitioner to report adverse events; 

However, many important amendments were defeated – in some cases by just one vote. These included:

• Requiring at least one of the medical practitioners involved to have some specialist qualifications or experience in the relevant condition;
• Ensuring equal access for Western Australians in rural areas to palliative care (as well as equal access to euthanasia and assisted suicide which the Bill guarantees) – defeated by one vote with Nationals voting against the amendment; and 
• Involving a psychiatrist or other relevant expert in assessment of decision making capacity; 

Hon Nick Goiran MP

In his third reading speech the Hon Nick Goiran summed up his reasons for opposing the Bill:

The desire of a significant proportion of confident people for ready access to lethal injections ought never override the rights of the quiet vulnerable to safety and protection.

Secondly, if we are intellectually honest and reason through the theory of a euthanasia regime, we should conclude that it is inherently unsafe. The insufficiency of the criminal justice safeguards informs us of this; the prevalence of medical negligence informs us of this; the ease of doctor shopping informs us of this; the reality of doctor bias informs us of this; and the evidence of elder abuse informs us of this.

When we engage with the lived experience of the very few jurisdictions that have legalised euthanasia or assisted suicide, we know that the theory of an inherently unsafe regime has resulted in casualties of wrongful deaths.

Ultimately, there is another way; there is a better way. There is a safe approach to end-of-life choices. However, it will require all of us to persistently insist that quality palliative care is made available to every Western Australian.

The Bill now returns to the Legislative Assembly where the 55 amendments made to it will be considered on Tuesday.

The government has repeatedly stated that it will be at least 18 months before the Bill comes into effect. As Ms Farina stated in her speech “We were told on no less than 77 occasions that [problems identified in the debate] will be sorted during the 18-month implementation phase.”

Western Australia will become the 18th jurisdiction in the world to enact a fatally flawed scheme for the State-sanctioned, extra judicial termination of the lives of its citizens by euthanasia and/or assisted suicide.

Richard Egan is a researcher who has studied euthanasia and assisted suicide laws for 35 years and is the author of Seventeen Fatally Flawed Experiments in Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia and Twelve Categories of Wrongful Death from Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia