Suicide Predator Conviction Upheld!

Regarding Canadian Nadia Kajouji of Brampton, Ontario.


http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/07/17/news/melchert-dinkel-aiding-suicide-conviction/

Appeals Court upholds nurse's aiding suicide conviction

by Amy Forliti, Associated Press 

July 17, 2012

[To for more information, charging document click here]

[To link to Nadia's Light, click here]

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The Minnesota Court of Appeals on Tuesday affirmed the convictions of a former nurse who scanned online chat rooms for suicidal people then, feigning compassion, gave a British man and a young woman in Canada instructions on how to kill themselves. 


William Melchert-Dinkel, 49, of Faribault, acknowledged that what he did was morally wrong but argued he had merely exercised his right to free speech and that the Minnesota law used to convict him in 2011 of aiding suicide was unconstitutional. 

The appeals court disagreed, saying the First Amendment does not bar the state from prosecuting someone for "instructing (suicidal people on) how to kill themselves and coaxing them to do so." 

Melchert-Dinkel's attorney, Terry Watkins, was not immediately available for comment. 

Court documents show Melchert-Dinkel searched online for depressed people then, posing as a female nurse, offered step-by-step instructions on how they could kill themselves. 

Melchert-Dinkel was convicted last year of two counts of aiding suicide in the deaths of 32-year-old Mark Drybrough, of Coventry, England, who hanged himself in 2005; and 18-year-old Nadia Kajouji, of Brampton, Ontario, who jumped into a frozen river in 2008. 

He was sentenced to more than six years in prison but the terms of his parole meant he would only be imprisoned for about a year. His sentence was postponed pending his appeal, but at the time of sentencing, he was told that if his convictions were upheld, he'd have seven days to report to jail. 

In arguing to overturn the conviction, Watkins said his client didn't talk anyone into suicide but instead offered emotional support to two people who had already decided to take their lives. 

Assistant Rice County Attorney Benjamin Bejar had argued that Melchert-Dinkel wasn't advocating suicide in general, but had a targeted plan to lure people to kill themselves. Prosecutors have said he convinced his victims to do something they might not have done without him. 

Bejar said Tuesday that prosecutors were pleased with the decision. 

In a statement read at his sentencing last year, Melchert-Dinkel said he was sorry for his role in the suicides and that he realized he had rejected a unique opportunity to talk his victims out of killing themselves. 

Melchert-Dinkel's nursing license was revoked in 2009

How about the right to cry for help? Court ruling asserting a person’s right to assisted suicide reflects discriminatory attitudes toward the disabled

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/about+right+help/6907100/story.html

By Amy E. Hasbrouck, Chair of Not Dead Yet

It has taken me a long time to read through the nearly 400 pages of the June 15 decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court on the issue of assisted suicide. I found reading it to be like a journey to a dark place, full of raw emotions.


The long and the short of the reasons for judgment issued by Justice Lynn Smith is that legal provisions in Canada prohibiting assisted suicide law are unconstitutional because they impede disabled people’s rights to life, liberty and security of the person.


The judge believes that having a disability or degenerative illness is a rational reason to want to die, and that those of us with disabilities should be helped to die if we can’t do it neatly or efficiently ourselves.


Justice Smith doesn’t appear to believe that people with disabilities and terminal illness are ever coerced, persuaded, bullied, tricked or otherwise induced to end our lives prematurely. She believes those researchers who contend there have been no problems in jurisdictions where assisted suicide is legal, and she rejects evidence suggesting there have been problems.
She writes: “It is unethical to refuse to relieve the suffering of a patient who requests and requires such relief, simply in order to protect other hypothetical patients from hypothetical harm.”


I’ll have to mention that to some of my hypothetical friends who say they have been pressured by doctors, nurses and social workers to hypothetically “pull the plug.”


The same goes for all those folks who succumbed to the pressure; I guess they’re only hypothetically dead.

The National Post: "The Wrong Decision on Assisted Suicide"

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/18/will-johnston-the-wrong-decision-on-assisted-suicide/

On June 15, the British Columbia Supreme Court rendered a controversial judgment in the case of Carter vs. Canada, one that purports to create constitutional immunity for those who provide assistance to those seeking to kill themselves — a judgment that stands at odds with the Supreme Court of Canada’s Rodriguez ruling in 1993. The only saving grace is that doctors will not be scribbling lethal prescriptions any day soon: Current law will stand for at least a year (the sole exception being the plaintiff in this case, 64-year-old ALS patient Gloria Taylor). Let us hope that a higher court restores sanity to the issue before this 12-month period expires.

"Especially if older people have money or real estate, our laws against assisted suicide are there to protect them"

http://www.abbotsfordtimes.com/news/Assisted+suicide+answer/6840769/story.html

Editor, the Times:

Assisted suicide should not be legal because older people are at great risk for abuse. In my experience as a licensed practical nurse working with older people in home care, I have come across many concerning situations.  I have seen firsthand a family fighting over the will of their parents while they are still alive.

I see that this greatly affects the way the parent feels as they grow older.  They feel as if the family wants them to die so they can have their money.  Some express the pain that they feel when they see loved ones discussing their money as if they have already passed away.

If assisted suicide was legal, some older people would feel the need to say yes - to die - because they are given the message that they are a burden to their family. Some of these older people can be easily convinced and put their trust fully in their caregivers and families.

If assisted suicide were legal, then some would really not make the decision, but let someone else make the decision for them. How is this right?  

Especially if older people have money or real estate, our laws against assisted suicide are there to protect them.

Changing the law to allow assisted suicide would violate their right to be protected in this way.

Arlena Vane Aldergrove

Outrage Over the Carter Case

Canada will be known as the country where a Provincial Judge has more power than the Federal Government. "

* * *Dear Ms. Kerry-Lynne Findlay MP,

I am angry and upset about Justice Lynn Smith's decision in the Carter case, giving Gloria Taylor the "right" to assisted suicide/euthanasia. 

This erroneous and presumptuous decision by Justice Smith is a guarantee of elder abuse unto death. We already have a problem with elder abuse in Canada. I witnessed this firsthand with my mother, when, after a mild stroke, the relative holding power of attorney decided my mother would have no treatment. I sat by my mother's bedside in a Nova Scotia nursing home, unable to do anything except hold her hand while she suffered for six days, before finally succumbing to dehydration and starvation. If Justice Smith's decision is allowed to stand, there will be no need for inconvenienced or greedy relatives to wait for even this questionable medical procedure of withholding treatment.

It appears that Justice Smith holds herself above the Government of Canada. She has given our elected representatives, such as yourself, a year to comply with her decision to allow people to "help" kill other Canadians. This is the right to commit homicide. The Federal Government of Canada decided many years ago that Canada would not kill convicted murderers, even if they want to die, but now Justice Smith had deemed that we can kill other people who allegedly ask to be killed. 

MP Findlay, the "right" to kill someone is not a decision for a Provincial Court Justice to make. If Justice Smith's decision is upheld, Canada will be a place of supreme irony. We will have the distinction of protecting the lives of convicted murders, while allowing our vulnerable elders and others to be subject to human error or deliberate murder. We will also be, I believe, unique as a nation: Canada will be known as the country where a Provincial Judge has more power than the Federal Government. 

I look forward to your response on this matter.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

Kate Kelly, B.A., B. Ed.

The Carter Opinion: Unclear Legal Effect; Invalid Reasoning

By Margaret Dore

On June 15, 2012, Justice Lynn Smith of the BC Supreme Court issued an opinion purporting to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in Canada.[1] As discussed below, the legal effect of this opinion is unclear. The reasoning is also invalid. 

A.  Legal Effect 

The opinion was the result of a summary trial in which both the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of British Columbia argued that the court had no power to do anything other than dismiss the case. This was due to the Supreme Court of Canada's prior decision on similar facts (the Rodriguez case). The opinion states:

"They [Canada and British Columbia] say that it is not open to this Court to do anything other than dismiss the plaintiffs' claim."[2]

If Canada and British Columbia are correct, the opinion is nothing more than an advisory document. Unless and until this point is resolved any person participating in a death under the opinion will remain at risk of criminal prosecution, civil lawsuits and/or professional discipline.

B.  Invalid Reasoning

The opinion is also written in double-speak, which means to say one thing and to mean another, sometimes the opposite.  Most centrally, the opinion bases the plaintiff's "right to die" on her "right to life" in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[3] These are opposite concepts.[4] 

The opinion also argues that because Canadian law does not prohibit suicide as a crime, that committing suicide is a right.[5] This claim ignores other Canadian law  discouraging suicide. Indeed, a suicidal person can be committed against his or her will in order to prevent a suicide.[6] With suicide actively discouraged under the law, it cannot be said that the law somehow grants a right to commit suicide. Once again, the opinion's logic is flawed.

* * *

[1]  To view the opinion, click here.
[2]  Opinion, page 251, paragraph 891.
[3]  Id., pages 365-8.
[4]  See e.g., the opinion at 366, paragraph 1314, which states: "Canada argues that the right to life does not include the right to choose death.  [Canada] submits that such an interpretation would directly contradict the plain and obvious meaning of a right to life and would mark a significant departure from existing Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence."
[5]  See e.g., the opinion at 10, paragraph 15: "The claim that the legislation infringes Ms. Taylor's equality rights begins with the fact that the law does not prohibit suicide. However, persons who are physically disabled such that they cannot commit suicide without help are denied that option because s. 241(b) prohibits assisted suicide."
[6]  See BC Mental Health Act, Part 3, Section 22 (allowing involuntary admissions "to prevent the person's or patient's substantial mental or physical deterioration or for the protection of the person or patient or the protection of others").

From Afghanistan to Activist Against Assisted Suicide: "These are things worth fighting for"

By John Coppard 

To view the original publication in Brain Tumour Magazine, click here.  To learn more about Brain Tumour Magazine, click here.

It was early summer 2009 and I was on my second “tour” in Kabul, Afghanistan, this time as NATO’s civilian spokesman.  I was responsible for representing NATO to media from the Alliance’s 28 member nations - regional powers such as Iran, Russia and Pakistan, and other troop contributing nations to the International Security Assistance Force, as well as Afghanistan’s own emerging media.  While my military counterpart handled military-specific issues, I was responsible for explaining the political and diplomatic aspects of NATO’s support to this brave and tragic country. With lukewarm support for the mission in many contributing nations, and a traumatised Afghan population bombarded by Taliban propaganda and wary of Western intentions, the stress of the job could be intense.

I felt up to the challenge.

Margaret Dore vs. Wanda Morris Debate Part 1

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz89dFU_rig

To see Part 2 go here

CFI Okanagan Presentation
Should assisted suicide be legal in Canada?

Wanda Morris, Executive Director of Dying With Dignity vs.
Margaret Dore, President of Choice is an Illusion

Margaret Dore is President of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia with a focus on the US and Canada. She is also a lawyer in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. Her practice has included appeals, elder law, probate and guardianships. She is a former Law Clerk to the Washington State Supreme Court and has been licensed to practice since 1986. For more information, see www.choiceillusion.org and www.margaretdore.org

Wanda Morris is the Executive Director of Dying with Dignity Canada, a charitable organization established in 1982 to educate the public about end of life options and the importance of advance care planning; to provide information and resources to the public and lawmakers about the choice in dying movement and the reasons why appropriately regulated medically assisted dying should be legalized in Canada; and to provide support for individuals at the end of their lives, including support at the bedside for those who wish to determine the nature and timing of their dying.

Wanda has been actively involved in the 2011 "right to die" Charter challenge brought before the Supreme Court of British Columbia and has been involved with the "right to die" movement for many years.

Margaret Dore vs. Wanda Morris Debate Part 2

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-5-BHgoy-E&feature=relmfu

To see Part 1 go here

Dore v Morris: Assisted suicide debate deals with abuse, compassion

http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/20120419/KAMLOOPS0101/120419759/-1...
Lawyer cautions against legislating through courts

By Mike Youds, Daily News Staff Reporter
 

Margaret Dore (L) and Wanda Morris (R)

A right to medically assisted suicide may sound compassionate and just, but beware the details when it comes to the act itself, a U.S. lawyer warned Wednesday in a debate at TRU.

Margaret Dore shared some of her experiences with assisted suicide in Washington State, where the practice became legal through a ballot measure four years ago.

 "A lot of people think this is a great idea until they start thinking and reading about how you do it," she told an audience of about 30 people in the Irving K. Barber Centre.

In effect, laws in Washington and Oregon empower people who may choose to abuse the responsibility, Dore said.

"Your heir can be there to help you sign up. Once the legal dose leaves the pharmacy, there is no oversight whatsoever."

Debates This Week: Margaret Dore v. Wanda Morris!

This Wednesday and Thursday in Kamloops and Kelowna:  Margaret Dore vs. Wanda Morris!  More information below.  To view a poster for the Kelowna debate, click here.  To view Margaret Dore's recent column in the New York Times, click here.

Kamloops: Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Time: 7:00 pm

Location: 900 McGill Road, Kamloops B.C.

Venue: Irving K. Barber Centre, Thompson Rivers University

Debaters:  Margaret Dore, President of "Choice is an Illusion," vs Wanda Morris, Executive Director of Dying with Dignity Canada

Kelowna: Thursday, April 19, 2012

Time: 7:00pm

Location: Mary Irwin Theatre, at the Rotary Centre for the Arts

Venue: 421 Cawston Avenue, Kelowna, BC, Canada
Debaters:  Margaret Dore, President of "Choice is an Illusion," vs Wanda Morris, Executive Director of Dying with Dignity Canada

Teen Suicide: "Assisted sucide law sends contradictory message"

From the US State of Vermont where the state legislature is considering a bill to legalize assisted suicide under an Oregon-style law:

http://vtdigger.org/2012/02/01/page-assisted-suicide-law-sends-contradictory-message/

Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Guy Page, a parent and resident of Cambridge.

In the Jan. 19 mail I received a letter from Lamoille Union High School, where my daughter is enrolled. It begins with the following sentence: “Over the last few years Vermont has seen an increase in suicide among young people.” It went on to describe a school initiative to hopefully address this awful development. I hope they are successful. All of my children have friends, or friends of friends, who have taken their own lives.

My eldest son, Tim, was a constant suicide risk through his teens. Through the wise, compassionate help of state social workers, Tim escaped his teen years alive. I can tell you that he was personally shaken by the implications, to him, of the proposed assisted suicide law several years ago. When he heard about it, my brilliant, troubled son began to shake in anger and almost despair. “Those hypocrites,” he said. “They’ve been telling me all this time that suicide is never OK.” It didn’t matter when I said the law is meant to address another set of problems – his teenaged hypocrisy-o-meter had already pegged assisted suicide as another example of “do as I say, not as I do, it’s all right for adults, not OK for kids.”

Recently I researched teen suicide in Oregon, where assisted suicide became legal in 1998. According to the Oregon health department website, there were more teen suicides after the law passed than before — 1999: 29 suicides. 2000: 44 suicides. 2001: 31. 2002: 37. 2003: 46. 2004: 52. The last two years were the highest two-year period in their survey. Furthermore, 94 percent of teen suicide attempts leading to hospitalization were caused by ingesting drugs – the only form of assisted suicide permitted by Oregon state law. Kids learn from their elders. 

 

Does this “prove” a link between the Oregon physician-assisted suicide law and teen suicide? No. But the burden of proof is on those who say, “Don’t worry, it will all be OK, none of our teens will think that.” As a parent of an at-risk child, I think this law may unintentionally tell other troubled teens “when it gets too hard it’s okay to end it all.” As the letter from my daughter’s high school says, the real world is a very hard place for some teens right now, and I think this law will just make it harder.

There are plenty of other reasons to oppose this bill. Before my wife passed in February 2011, she was appalled and upset at end-of-life questions asked of her in the ICU that to her seemed motivated by hospital cost-control. It drove a (thankfully temporary) wedge of distrust between her and her caregivers. So Vermont Insurance Commissioner Steve Kimball’s newspaper comments connecting this end-of-life issue with the high cost of health care were chilling. By contrast, Orange County Sen. Mark MacDonald’s daughter was one of Diane’s nurses and provided skilled, affirming care that should be the goal of the state’s health policy. But for me the teen suicide connection is reason enough for the Senate to drop this bill before it does irreversible harm.

---

Article printed from VTDigger: http://vtdigger.org/
URL to article: http://vtdigger.org/2012/02/01/page-assisted-suicide-law-sends-contradictory-message/
URLs in this post:

[1] : http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5635a2.htm

"No bill has made it through the scrutiny of a state legislature, even after 100 attempts"

Published in the National Post: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/04/todays-letters-e-cigarettes-will-still-prove-deadly-to-smokers/

Poll: 67% Support Assisted Suicide, Dec. 30.

Tom Blackwell’s article reporting that 67% of Canadians poll in favor of assisted suicide is déjà vu all over again for readers in the United States. The superficial and often misleading poll questions on this topic produced similar statistics in a number of U.S. states over the years.

One superficial assumption is that there’s no meaningful distinction between suicide and assisted suicide — most people know that it could tip the scales if your doctor and family members agreed that it was time for you to go.

Another factor is that the phrase “physician-assisted suicide” implies that a trust-worthy doctor is the only assistant. However, the language of assisted suicide laws actually immunizes all potential suicide assistants from any type of liability, not just doctors.

And, finally, there’s a vague sense of comfort that safeguards can ensure that the process is voluntary. But even if the relatively flimsy protections leading up to the lethal prescription are assumed to be ironclad, once the lethal drugs are in ones home, the law does nothing to ensure that they are taken voluntarily.

All in all, a closer look at this complex issue raises so many doubts that only two of our 50 states have legalized the practice by ballot referendum, and no bill has made it through the scrutiny of a state legislature, even after 100 attempts.

Diane Coleman, president/CEO Not Dead Yet, Rochester, N.Y.

"What I have witnessed will change any Canadian's opinion in a hurry"

Published in the National Post: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/04/todays-letters-e-cigarettes-will-still-prove-deadly-to-smokers/

The poll conducted by Forum Research further exploited voters’ own fear of their personal uncertain future. If the poll question was: “If evidence found that close to 50% of the legalized deaths are without consent, would you still legalize euthanasia/assisted-suicide?,” I guarantee that the poll would show drastically different results.

I have had to live in a long-term care facility since 2000. What I have witnessed here will change any Canadian’s opinion in a hurry.

Robert Greig, Montreal.

"What happened in the Netherlands can happen next in Canada"

Published in the National Post: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/04/todays-letters-e-cigarettes-will-still-prove-deadly-to-smokers/

I have studied assisted suicide in the Netherlands since 1988. At first there was no law against assisted suicide. When there was a law, doctors were supposed to obtain the patient’s consent — but they did not, often performing euthanasia when they thought the patient would benefit. The doctor was supposed to get a second opinion from a colleague — but often did not. The doctor was supposed to report the assisted suicide to the government — but often did not.

What happened to the Netherlands can happen next in Canada.

Dr. William Reichel, affiliated scholar, Center for Clinical Bioethics at the Georgetown University School of Medicine, Timonium, Md.

"If euthanasia were legal, the wife, not wanting to die, would still be a victim"

The Danger of Euthanasia

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Danger+euthanasia/5935217/story.html

By Alex Schadenberg, Ottawa Citizen January 2, 2012
 

Re: Time to rethink euthanasia, Dec. 29.

Marcel Lavoie implies that legalizing euthanasia would stop violent deaths in the elderly, such as the death of Doreen Flann by stabbing.

In many of these deaths, the perpetrator-husband also kills himself for a murder-suicide.
In Oregon, where assisted-suicide has been legal since 1997, murdersuicide has not been eliminated. Indeed, murder-suicide follows the national pattern.

Moreover, according to Donna Cohen, an expert on murder-suicide, the typical case involves a depressed, controlling husband who shoots his ill wife: "The wife does not want to die and is often shot in her sleep. If she was awake at the time, there are usually signs that she tried to defend herself."

If euthanasia were legal, the wife, not wanting to die, would still be a victim.

Our laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia are in place to protect vulnerable people. Assisted suicide and/or euthanasia should not be legalized in Canada.

[For more indepth information, see Dominique Bourget, MD, Pierre Gagne, MD, Laurie Whitehouse, PhD, "Domestic Homicide and Homicide-Suicide:  The Older Offender," Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, September 2010 (Canadian study);  Don Colburn, "Recent murder-suicides follow the national pattern," The Oregonian, November 17, 2009; and “Murder-suicides in Elderly Rise: Husbands commit most murder-suicides – without wives’ consent” ]

Alex Schadenberg, London
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

No Right to be Killed by Others

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/right+killed+others/5931282/story.html

Re: Poll: 67% Support Assisted Suicide, Dec. 30.

I am greatly perplexed when I hear euthanasia proponents talk about a "basic human right to die," when there is no such thing. We are all going to die anyway, so let's please be honest and call it what it is: The right to be killed by somebody else. I am deeply disturbed by people who overlook the failure of the euthanasia experiments in other countries. Why do they coldly dismiss all those hundreds of people who have been euthanized without their consent? Do they consider them collateral damage? Would they call for an absolute right to drive for everybody, even if they knew lots of innocent people would be killed by incompetent drivers? I don't think so.

Canada rightly forbade capital punishment, due to the fact that no system can guarantee that no one will be killed by mistake. We have the freedom to make choices, but those choices should not hinder the safety of others, especially our most vulnerable.

Rene Leiva, physician, Ottawa.

"A closer look at this complex issue raises so many doubts that only two of our fifty states have legalized the practice by ballot referendum, and no bill has made it through the scrutiny of a state legislature, even after 100 attempts"

Tom Blackwell’s article reporting that 67% of Canadians poll in favor of assisted suicide is déjà vu all over again for readers in the U.S.  The superficial and often misleading poll questions on this topic produced similar statistics in a number of U.S. states over the years.

One superficial assumption is that there’s no meaningful distinction between suicide and assisted suicide, but most people know that it could “tip the scales” if your doctor and family members agreed that it was time for you to go.

Another factor is that the phrase “physician assisted suicide” implies that a trust-worthy doctor is the only “assistant”, but the language of assisted suicide laws actually immunizes all potential suicide assistants from any type of liability, not just doctors.

And, finally, there’s a vague sense of comfort that “safeguards” can ensure that the process is voluntary.  But even if the relatively flimsy protections leading up to the lethal prescription are assumed to be ironclad, once the lethal drugs are in one’s home, the law does nothing to ensure that they are taken voluntarily.

All in all, a closer look at this complex issue raises so many doubts that only two of our fifty states have legalized the practice by ballot referendum, and no bill has made it through the scrutiny of a state legislature, even after 100 attempts.

Diane Coleman, JD, President/CEO

Not Dead Yet

"If euthanasia were legal, the wife, not wanting to die, would still be a victim"

Dear Editor:

Marcel Lavoie implies that legalizing euthanasia would stop violent deaths in the elderly, such as the death of Doreen Flann by stabbing at the hands of her husband, Ian. [“Time to rethink euthanasia,” Dec. 29^th ]. In many of these deaths, the perpetrator-husband also kills himself for a murder-suicide.   

In Oregon where assisted-suicide has been legal since 1997, murder-suicide has not been eliminated. Indeed, murder-suicide follows “the national pattern.” Moreover, according to Donna Cohen, an expert on murder-suicide, the typical case involves a depressed, controlling husband who shoots his ill wife:

 

“The wife does not want to die and is often shot in her sleep. If she was awake at the time, there are usually signs that she tried to defend herself.”

 

If euthanasia were legal, the wife, not wanting to die, would still be a victim.

Our laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia are in place to protect vulnerable people. Assisted suicide and/or euthanasia should not be legalized in Canada.

 

Link to a Canadian study published in September 2010 - http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/3/305.full

 

[Note to editor: You may be interested in these articles: Don Colburn, "Recent murder-suicides follow the national pattern," The Oregonian, November 17, 2009,  and “Murder-suicides in Elderly Rise: Husbands commit most murder-suicides – without wives’ consent.”

 

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Box 25033
London ON, Canada, N6C 6A8
1-877-439-3348

"It was only money and not her life."

Dear Editor:

I was disturbed by Mark Hume's article, "A B.C. family's secret:  How they helped their parents die," which treats as a given that a father and mother, who died via secret assisted suicides, wanted to die.  We don't know that.  What we do know is that the adult children left behind, who state that they fear prosecution, have presented a somewhat loving account of the story.  I say somewhat loving because they admittedly allowed their mother to die alone, upstairs, while they gathered together in the kitchen below.

In my life, I have not experienced children who "helped their parents to die."  I have, however, had contact with women abused by their spouses, who outright deny that the abuse occurs.  The victim protects the perpetrator.  I have an older friend who wired $5000 to a stranger who had phoned impersonating her grandson.  Yes, she acted voluntarily to send the money, but she had been manipulated to do so.  When she later realized what had happened, she was so embarrassed, it took her three weeks to tell me.  The money was long gone.  But it was only money and not her life.

The Government of Canada website describes elder abuse as a widespread and hidden problem.  The abuse is often perpetrated by family members such as the adult children described in Humes' article.  We can't stop the abuse now.  Relaxing our laws on assisted suicide will only increase it.  I can only hope that our country does not take this course.


[Editor, this is a link to the Government of Canada website:  http://www.seniors.gc.ca/c.4nt.2nt@.jsp?lang=eng&geo=110&cid=154#e    You may also be interested in this study describing the high prevalence of elder abuse in the United States:  http://www.metlife.com/mmi/research/broken-trust-elder-abuse.html#findings ]

Annette Turgeon