Assisted-Suicide Pushers Want Forced MD Participation

By Wesley J. Smith
National Right to Life

Assisted-suicide advocates pretend they want assisted suicide limited to the terminally ill.

They pretend that they favor strict guidelines. And they pretend they would never want doctors forced to participate in intentionally ending the life of a patient. Indeed, the laws they have passed all contain conscience protections.

Except, sometimes they show their true hands. For example, when the Canadian Supreme Court imposed a broad right to lethal-injection euthanasia — certainly not limited to the dying — Compassion and Choices (formerly the Hemlock Society) issued a laudatory press release — later scrubbed because it told the truth about the movement’s true goals [].

And now, Compassion and Choices — again, which has included conscience protections in laws it sponsored as a necessary predicate to passage — has come out strongly against a proposed Trump-administration office in HHS to protect medical professionals from forced participation in procedures against their consciences and/or religious beliefs. From an email sent to its supporters (my emphasis):

The new division marks one of the greatest threats we’re facing to the future of the end-of-life choice movement and patient-centered care.

Under the HHS proposed rules, providers who object to various procedures could impose their own religious beliefs on their patients by withholding vital information about treatment options from them — including options such as voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, palliative sedation or medical aid in dying. 

And your federal tax dollars will be used to protect physicians who make the unconscionable decision to willfully hold back information from a patient and abandon them when they are at their most vulnerable.

National Right to Life article continues here

The Alarming Trend of Bullying Hospitals and Hospices Into Assisted Suicide

Increasingly aggressive euthanasia activists are attempting to rewrite the meaning of 

palliative care across Canada

Dr. Will Johnston

By Dr. Will Johnston, Chair of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition-BC.

National Right to Life

Editor’s note. This article was published by Huffington Post on January 29, 2018 and reposted on the blog of Alex Schadenberg.

Canadians who are sick and suicidal can now be put to death under various medicalized and government-approved protocols, following court and legislative victories by euthanasia activists. These activists are now turning their considerable talents to a coercive makeover of the palliative hospice movement by demanding that hospices founded on a promise to never deliberately hasten death should provide a death-hastening service.

Before they got their way in the Canadian Supreme Court, the public posture of euthanasia advocates was one of caution, reassurance, and limitation of objectives. After their victory, partisans of the medical killing movement have become impatient with individuals or institutions who want no part in suicide and euthanasia.

Activists recommend expanding access to include all the people who were strategically excluded from the plan that had been sold to the public: children, people with chronic nonfatal conditions, the physically disabled, the cognitively disabled, psychiatric patients.

Now, even changing the location of a patient requesting suicide — from a euthanasia-free hospital or hospice, to one that does offer it — is being protested as a cruel imposition. In doing so, the death-seeking person is set up as a victim, and the hospital or hospice is portrayed as a victimizer. Never mind that hospital wards routinely transport people in complete comfort to procedures like X-rays or scopes, or to another location to continue care.

The implications of this are dire. Many hospices serve patients who want nothing to do with assisted suicide, and there will be much harm done by forcing it into their midst. Every community in this country has the resources to provide a distinct euthanasia-free space. That distinct space and its staff could be specialized and uncoerced into death-hastening.

The unpleasant alternative was demonstrated by the recent “sneak attack” on Louis Brier Hospital, a Jewish retirement home in Vancouver. This was the work of euthanasia activist Ellen Wiebe, idolized by like-minded columnists for her aggressive death-providing practice.

National Right to Life article continues here

Former California Politician Charged With Assisting the Suicide of His Wife

By Alex Schadenberg, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
National Right to Life

Steven Clute, a former member of the California Assembly, was charged with assisting the suicide of his wife, Pamela Clute. Pamela Clute died from a gunshot wound on August 21, 2016, at their home.

Her husband stated that the suicide was related to her severe pain.

According to the Associated Press article:

Steve Clute, 69, a former Navy pilot who served as a Democrat in the state Assembly from 1982 to 1992, allegedly gave her the handgun she used to take her life, John Hall, spokesman for the Riverside district attorney, said Monday.

The Clute assisted suicide trial may test the limits of the California assisted suicide law.

According to the AP story

While California’s assisted suicide law went into effect a couple months before Clute’s death, the law only applies to terminally ill patients who are prescribed life-ending drugs by a physician. Clute wasn’t terminally ill.

The AP article stated that Steve Clute was not present at the time of his wife’s death. Even if this is true, according to the law, it doesn’t matter.

The California Penal Code 401 – Aiding, Advising or Encouraging a Suicide states that it is a crime to: advise or encourage someone to commit suicide.
There were no independent witnesses at the time of the death.

Editor’s note. This appeared on Mr. Schadenberg’s blog and is reposted with permission.

Website: National Right to Life

California Hospital Sued for Refusing to Assist Suicide

Kathryn L. Tucker

By Wesley Smith
National Right to Life

This lawsuit is a little before its time. Should assisted suicide become widely accepted in this country, activists will try to force all doctors to participate–either by doing the deed or referring to a doctor known to be willing to lethally prescribe.

But it isn’t yet, and so the pretense of the movement that they only want an itsy-bitsy, teensy-weensy change in mores and law continues as SOP.

But sometimes they show their true intentions. Thus, when UCSF oncologists refused to assist a cancer patient’s suicide, the woman died of her disease.

Now, her family is suing–using the same attorney (Kathryn Tucker) who tried (unsuccessfully) to obtain an assisted suicide Roe v Wade in 1997 and has brought other pro-assisted suicide cases around the country.

From the San Francisco Chronicle story:

Judy Dale died of cancer in her San Francisco home in September, in agony, after being denied the pain-relieving medication she might have received under the state’s aid-in-dying law that had taken effect three months earlier.

Bias alert! Pain relieving medication is palliative, to ease pain or other very uncomfortable. Dale was not issued a lethal prescription intended to kill her. That’s not the same thing. Back to the story:

A lawsuit by her children will determine whether UCSF Medical Center, where Dale first went for treatment, was responsible for her suffering by allegedly concealing its oncologists’ decision not to provide life-ending drugs to patients who ask for them. More broadly, their suit illuminates the inner workings of a law that confers new rights on terminally ill patients, but few obligations on their health care providers.

Specifically, doctors and hospitals are provided clear and explicit conscience protections in the law. No hospital or physician can be forced to participate or refer in an assisted suicide.

National Right to Life continues

Dutch Right-to-Die Group Confirms Elder Abuse Risk But Doesn’t Seem to Care

 There have already been some murders

Dutch Supreme Court Judge Huib Drion

By Paul Russell

National Right to Life

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.

National Right to Life continues

Doctors Pressured This Woman to Die by Euthanasia. One Year Later She is Much Better

Candice Lewis

By Alex Schadenberg, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
National Right to Life

In July Candice Lewis’s mother, Sheila Elson, received a disappointing response from the local Newfoundland hospital after sending an official complaint that she’d been pressured by doctors to approve assisted suicide for her daughter, Candice, who has multiple disabilities.

As reported in a story written by Stephen Roberts, “Elson calls Labrador-Grenfell Health’s response to her letter a joke.”

However a follow up article from Roberts published in the Northern Pen newspaper on August 28 explained that Candice is doing much better after receiving excellent care from a hospital in St John’s Newfoundland.

The article reported:

According to her mom, Sheila Elson, Candice hasn’t been having any seizures, is now able to feed herself, walk with assistance, use her iPad, and is more alert, energetic and communicative since her stay in St. John’s.

“She’s back to about where she was five or six years ago,” says Elson.

After a two-week hospital stay, Candice, along with her mother, walked her sister Glennis down the aisle at her wedding in Dildo in August. 

She’s been able to do all this despite the fact that in 2016, doctors suggested that Candice might be dying.

In September of that year, a doctor at Charles S. Curtis Memorial Hospital in St. Anthony had also suggested to Elson that physician-assisted death could be an option for Candice. What is satisfying her these days is her daughter’s health. 

Since returning to St. Anthony earlier this month, Candice hasn’t required a visit to the hospital.

National Right to Life continues

The Conway Case – A Change in the Law to Allow Assisted Suicide is Dangerous and Unnecessary

Noel Conway

By Dr. Peter Saunders
National Right to Life

Editor’s note. Dr. Saunders is a former general surgeon and CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organization with 4,500 UK doctors and 1,000 medical students as members.

A 67-year-old Shropshire man with motor neurone disease (MND) is seeking to overturn the law banning assisted suicide.

Noel Conway is backed by the former Voluntary Euthanasia Society (now rebranded Dignity in Dying [DID]), whose lawyers will argue that the current blanket ban on assisted suicide under the Suicide Act is incompatible with his rights under sections 8 and 14 the Human Rights Act (respect for private and family life and protection from discrimination).

Mr. Conway’s case is substantially the same as that of Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb in 2014, except that his condition is terminal.

There have been over ten attempts to legalise assisted suicide through British Parliaments since 2003, all of which have failed. The last of these was the Marris Bill in 2015 which was defeated by an overwhelming majority of 330 to 118 in the House of Commons amidst concerns about public safety.

Frustrated at their lack of success in parliament has led DID and other campaigners to pursue their agenda through the courts.

Conway is bringing his case against the Secretary State for Justice. Three other organizations have been granted permission to intervene in the case – Humanists UK (formerly the British Humanists’ Association (BHA)) on the side of Conway and Not Dead Yet UK and Care Not Killing(CNK) on the side of the defendant.

A change in the law is opposed by every major disability rights organisation and doctors’ group, including the BMA, Royal College of GPs and the Association for Palliative Medicine, who have looked at this issue in detail and concluded that there is no safe system of assisted suicide and euthanasia anywhere in the world.

Laws in the Netherlands and Belgium that were only meant to apply to mentally competent terminally ill adults, have been extended to include the elderly, disabled, those with mental health problems and even non-mentally competent children.

While in Oregon, the model often cited by those wanting to change the law, there are examples of cancer patients being denied lifesaving and life extending drugs, yet offered the lethal cocktail of barbiturates to end their own lives.

National Right to Life continues

Elder Abuse is a Clear and Present Danger in the Euthanasia Debate

“Even if a few grannies get bullied into [assisted suicide], isn’t that the price worth paying for all the people who could die with dignity?”

  Henry Marsh, British Neurosurgeon

By Paul Russell, HOPE Director
National Right to Life

June 15 was World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. Timed to coincide with this international day, the Australian Law Reform Commission released its final report into a long-running inquiry on Elder Abuse and the Law.

Running to 432 pages, the report takes a comprehensive look at the legal landscape across Australia and argues for a comprehensive nation-wide approach to tackling Elder Abuse. While looking mainly at the law, it also looks at abuse in Aged Care settings and argues for an overhaul of staffing, staff training, recruitment and mandatory reporting type structures to protect people.
The report also looks at training for lawyers and medical professionals.

What is elder abuse?
The World Health Organization describes Elder Abuse as: ‘a single, or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action, occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust which causes harm or distress to an older person’

It is recognized to ‘take various forms, such as physical abuse, psychological or emotional abuse, financial abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect. The World Health Organization has estimated that the prevalence rate of elder abuse in high-or middle-income countries ranges from 2% to 14% of people usually defined as ‘over the age of 60 or 65 years’.

The WHO also noted that research in other predominantly high-income countries has found ‘wide variation in rates of abuse in the preceding 12 months among adults aged over 60 years, ranging from 0.8% in Spain and 2.6% in the United Kingdom to upwards of 18% in Israel, 23.8% in Austria and 32% in Belgium.’

Whether there is a connection between the extremely high rate of Elder Abuse in Belgium and the existence of their euthanasia regime can only be guessed at, though intuitively one could easily develop a ‘best guess’ argument based on culture alone.

The report notes that ‘vulnerability’ to such abuse is not necessarily related to the age of the person. However, the effects of aging, broadly understood, can make our elders vulnerable to such abuse. There is also a connection to disability as noted in the report:

“While older people should not be considered vulnerable merely because of their age, some factors commonly associated with age can make certain older people more vulnerable to abuse. Disability, for example, is more common among older people. More than 80% of people aged 85 years or over have some disability."

While fewer than one in 20 Australians under 55 years have ‘severe or profound core activity limitations’, almost one-third of people aged 75 years or over have such limitations.” The authors go on to add:

“Vulnerability does not only stem from intrinsic factors such as health, but also from social or structural factors, like isolation and community attitudes such as ageism. All of these factors contribute to elder abuse.”

National Right to Life continues

Disability Activists Rally Against Assisted Suicide at NY Court of Appeals

National Right to Life

Disability rights activists from across the state rallied Tuesday as the New York Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the Myers v. Schneiderman assisted suicide case.

Not Dead Yet led the filing of a Disability Rights friend-of-the-court brief in the Court of Appeals in support of the New York State Attorney General, and earlier rulings in the case by the Supreme Court and Appellate Division, both of which dismissed a case seeking to legalize physician assisted suicide.

Joining in the Not Dead Yet brief were ten other national and New York state disability rights organizations: ADAPT, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, the Center for Disability Rights, the Disability Rights Center, the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF), the National Council on Independent Living, the New York Association on Independent Living, Regional Center for Independent Living and United Spinal Association, collectively referred to as the “Disability Rights Amici.”

New York attorney Adam Prizio handled the filing on behalf of the disability organizations. “Our basic position is that when some people get suicide prevention while other people get suicide assistance, and the difference is the person’s age, disability or health status, that’s unlawful discrimination,” said Prizio.

“It’s a problem that certain people are being told that others not only agree with their suicide, which is bad enough, but will even help them carry it out. It’s a deadly form of discrimination and, as our brief says, it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

Marilyn Golden, senior policy analyst with DREDF, summarizes concerns about a government authorized, medically administered public policy of assisted suicide as follows:

“If assisted suicide is legalized, some people’s lives will be ended without their consent, through mistakes and abuse. No safeguards have ever been enacted or proposed that can prevent this outcome, which can never be undone.”

Editor’s note. This was posted by the disability rights organization Not Dead Yet. According to New York Law Journal the plaintiffs are “challenging whether two anti-assisted suicide statutes in state Penal Law apply to physicians and, if they do, whether the physicians’ constitutional rights are violated by the statutes.” Their challenge has already been rejected by two lower courts.

National Right to Life continues

Nevada Assisted Suicide Hearing Abruptly Cancelled, Opponents Hold Press Conference

Brian Callister, MD

By Nevada Right to Life
National Right to Life

Editor’s note. This Action Alert was provided by Nevada Right to Life, NRLC’s state affiliate.

The scheduled hearing on SB261 was abruptly cancelled yesterday in the wake of strong opposition to the bill that has been pouring in. As the AP notes today, “Opponents Amass.” The Las Vegas Review-Journal added, “Foes of Nevada right-to-die bill turn out in force for protest.” The bill was given a special exemption from having to be voted out of committee by tomorrow.

Why was the hearing cancelled and the bill given an exemption? The bill is in trouble. One giant reason is that opponents like you, not only “amassed” or “turned out in force” but also because of the calls and emails you sent and by registering your opinion at the legislative website. (See below.)

But that’s not all that happened yesterday. The coalition Nevadans Against Doctor Prescribed Suicide held a press conference. Nevadans Against Doctor Prescribed Suicide is a broad alliance of disability rights, healthcare, civil rights, faith-based, and patient advocacy organizations dedicated to preventing legalization of assisted suicide in Nevada.

The Nevadan’s Against Doctor Prescribed Suicide’s press conference was impressive and had powerful witnesses including Brian Callister MD, Peter Fenwick MD, Kurt Bronander MD, Stephanie Packer (a young mother of four with a terminal lung illness undergoing chemotherapy), disability advocates Deidre Hammon and Brianna Hammon, Nevada state Sen. Dr. Joe Hardy, and Washington attorney Margaret Dore.

National Right to Life report continues

This 81-Year-Old Woman Got a 'Don’t Euthanize Me' Tattoo

‘I’m going to live until God’s ready for me’

Catholic News Agency

Calgary, Canada, Dec 31, 2016 / 10:43 am (CNA).- An 81-year-old walking into a tattoo shop may sound like the start of a joke, but to Christine Nagel, her new ink is no laughing matter.

The Calgary grandmother recently had the words “Don’t euthanize me” tattooed on her arm.

“It’s drastic, but this very clearly says, ‘I’m going to live until God’s ready for me’,” she told Canadian news outlet, Globalnews.ca.

A devout Christian, Nagel opposes assisted suicide, which was legalized in Canada this summer. It is already legal in several other European countries.

In the U.S., a handful of states currently allow for assisted suicide, and numerous states have seen legislative pushes to legalize it in the past year.

The Catholic Church opposes all forms of suicide as violating the inherent dignity of human life. Catholic teaching supports palliative care and other options to alleviate suffering without killing a human person.

Critics of assisted suicide laws say they send the message to society that suicide is an acceptable way to handle suffering, and that they are ripe for abuse, from financially motivated killings and lack of consent to lethal pills changing hands.

Catholic News article continues