Showing posts with label Euthanasia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Euthanasia. Show all posts

Thursday, December 6, 2018

Margaret Dore Speaks at Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Symposium, Speech Highlights


Click here to watch video
Winnipeg Canada, October 27, 2018
Introduction: 

Washington State and Oregon
I am a licensed attorney, or lawyer, whatever term you want to use, in Washington state, USA, where we do have legal assisted suicide. And in the fine print, our bill, and all of the Oregon-style bills, also allow euthanasia. And that's because there’s no requirement of self-administration.  Oregon's law doesn’t even use the word, "self-administer. " [The other side’s claim that it does, is] propaganda.

And Washington's law says “may” self-administer.

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Roger Foley Lawsuit Challenges Canada's Euthanasia Law

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/denied-assisted-life-by-hospital-ontario-man-is-offered-death-instead-lawsuit

An Ontario hospital that wants to discharge a suicidal man with a crippling brain disease threatened to start charging him $1,800 a day, and suggested his other options included medically assisted death [non-voluntary euthanasia], according to a new lawsuit.

It also claims Canada’s new assisted dying laws are unconstitutional and should be struck down because they do not require doctors “to even try to help relieve intolerable suffering” before offering to kill a terminally ill patient.

The scandalous claims, as yet untested in court, are among the first major court challenges to the law, created in 2016 by the federal government in response to a Supreme Court ruling [Carter] that struck down the criminal ban on assisted suicide. ...

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Care Home Fined For Declining Euthanasia Request

Belgium Flag
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/care-home-fined-for-declining-euthanasia-request

Judges in Belgium have fined a Roman Catholic care home for refusing to euthanise a 74-year-old woman.

The rest home in Diest was ordered to pay €6,000 after it prevented doctors from giving Mariette Buntjens, a lung cancer sufferer, a lethal injection.

She died “in peaceful surroundings” at her home a few days later. . . .

Labour MP Robert Flello described the judgment as “worrying” and said there is a “risk that care homes will now close across Belgium”.

A panel of three judges ruled unanimously that “the nursing home had no right to refuse euthanasia on the basis of conscientious objection”.

They interpreted Belgium’s euthanasia law, enacted in 2002, to mean that only individual medical professionals can refuse requests, not hospitals or care homes.

To read more, click here.

Monday, July 4, 2016

Expect More From Government

http://www.pentictonwesternnews.com/opinion/letters/385087351.html

Canada’s Parliament has now passed the euthanasia law known as Bill C-14.

From the first day Bill C-14 was introduced in the House of Commons, members from all parties began the work of attempting to make this sow’s ear into a silk purse.

Even in the final days of deliberation, when the bill bounced back and forth between the House and the Senate, a majority of members still held on to the hope that they could get the job done for Canadians and turn this ‘bad’ bill into ‘good’ law.

One last ditch attempt to clean up the mess introduced in Bill C-14 by the Liberal government was the proposal of a protective amendment that would prohibit a beneficiary from participating in a person’s assisted death, or, signing the person’s request for assisted death.

This was a proposal that protected people from a greedy beneficiary or an unscrupulous family member.

But wait, why try to make this bad bill better? Turns out, this protective amendment didn’t ‘fit the bill’ so it was passed without it — by a majority of Parliament. And, why should Parliament at this point, even try to make the legislation better?  Especially when the sweet smell of summer is calling back home and the steaks are sizzling away on the barbeque.

Friday, July 1, 2016

Was the New Mexico Supreme Court Thinking About Canada?

New Mexico Supreme Court
By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA
Updated July 4, 2016

Yesterday, the New Mexico Supreme Court in a unanimous 5-0 decision held that there is no right to "physician aid in dying," meaning physician-assisted suicide. Notably, the Court stated that to do so would lead to "voluntary or involuntary euthanasia." The decision states:
[W]e agree with the legitimate concern that recognizing a right to physician aid in dying will lead to voluntary or involuntary euthanasia because if it is a right, it must be made available to everyone, even when a duly appointed surrogate makes the decision, and even when the patient is unable to self-administer the life-ending medication. [page 31]
The New Mexico Supreme Court thus describes the situation unfolding in Canada today: first with the Canadian Supreme Court decision in Carter (implicitly finding a right to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia), and now with news that the BCCLA has launched a court challenge, seeking to expand that "right."

In a recent blog post, Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, described the BCCLA challenge this way:
This is the first of many [likely] court challenges to Canada's euthanasia and assisted suicide law. The euthanasia lobby [wants] to extend euthanasia to "mature" minors, to people with dementia (through advanced directives) and for people with psychiatric conditions alone. . . .
Canada is proving the New Mexico Supreme Court right.

BCCLA Launching Legal Case to Expand Euthanasia "Eligibility"

http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.ca/2016/06/first-legal-case-to-expand-euthanasia.html

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The BC Civil Liberties Association has wasted no time in launching the first legal challenge to Canada's recently passed euthanasia and assisted suicide law.

Globe and Mail reporter Laura Stone informs us that the BC Civil Liberties Association is launching a court case to "strike down" as unconstitutional the provision in the euthanasia law that states a person's "natural death must be reasonably foreseeable" to qualify for death by lethal injection.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Bill C-14, as enacted, media release

Canada's Bill, C-14, which legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia throughout Canada, can be viewed clicking here.

A media release, discussing the bill prior to final amendments, can be viewed by clicking here.

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Canada's euthanasia law: Fast tracking death for Canadians who lack health care

https://www.prlog.org/12566593-canadas-euthanasia-law-fast-tracking-death-for-canadians-who-lack-health-care.html

Paul Saba, MD
Canada's euthanasia law which passed on June 17, 2016 will cause may Canadians to die needlessly who have many good years to live and lack quality medical care.

According to Dr. Paul Saba, a family physician in Montreal: "Canadians deserve quality medical care at all times of their lives. This includes having access to a family physician, early screening and detection of illnesses, and the latest treatments and cures. Many Canadians wait a long time for: physicians, specialists, screening, testing and treatments. Canadians' access to specialist and primary care is the lowest among 11 comparable countries. Canada's Parliament has chosen to focus on providing lethal injections rather than providing quality health care for its citizens.

To view the entire press release, click here.

Monday, June 13, 2016

Konrad Yakabuski: "Looking Back on the AIDS Crisis Makes Me Look at Assisted Dying Differently"

To read the entire article, click here

What has troubled me most as Canada moves to legalize physician-assisted death is the fatalism of those, including some senators, who argue for the broadest access possible to the “procedure.”

That’s fine for those who are certain in their choice of death. But who is ever really sure they want to die? Given the options available – intolerable physical or psychological pain, total dependence on others for care – it’s understandable that some would choose to hasten death. The Supreme Court correctly decided that consenting adults in this situation should be able to do so with medical help. But that shouldn’t mean the state should encourage it.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

"No" on Bill C-14 and Carter; No Assisted Suicide; No Euthanasia

I was happy to see the CBC article concerning your reluctance to endorse Bill C-14. You are right to be concerned.

Robert-Falcon Oulette, MP

I am a lawyer in Washington State USA where assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal. Bill C-14 and legalization generally will encourage people with years to live to throw away their lives. Carter was wrong. Legalization does not promote the right to life.

Please consider the following reasons:


1.  The bill's title, "medical assistance in dying," implies that eligible people are dying. There is no requirement that people be dying. They are instead required to have a "grievous and irremediable medical condition." See Bill C-14, § 241.2(2).

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Assisted suicide opens the door to grave abuses of elderly

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1287933--assisted-suicide-opens-the-door-to-grave-abuses-of-elderly

Derek Miedema, November 14, 2012

Canadians can watch disturbing videos on a government website warning about elder abuse — an elderly man is pushed to move faster, an adult child steals money from a grandmother’s wallet. 

However, just as some still turn a blind eye to the fact that elder abuse is happening, proponents of assisted suicide refuse to connect the dots between legalized assisted suicide and the potential for serious abuse.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Assisted suicide too risky, allowing it demeans value of life, federal gov't says

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Assisted+suicide+risky+allowing+demeans+value+life+federal+says/7447066/story.html

The Canadian Press October 25, 2012 12:30 PM
 
VANCOUVER - The federal government says allowing doctor-assisted suicide demeans the value of life and puts vulnerable people at risk in moments of weakness.

Ottawa has filed its arguments in an appeal of a B.C. decision that struck down the prohibition on doctor-assisted suicide, arguing the trial judge was wrong to conclude the law is unconstitutional.

In documents filed with the B.C. Court of Appeal, the government says the law reflects a reasonable belief that allowing assisted suicide would put vulnerable people at risk of being coerced or even forced to end their lives.

The government says the law reflects Parliament's desire to discourage and prevent suicide in all cases, and it should be up to lawmakers, not the courts, to decide if that needs to change.

Ottawa argues the Supreme Court of Canada's 1993 decision upholding the law in a case involving Sue Rodriguez was final.

The B.C. case was launched by several plaintiffs, including Gloria Taylor, who won a constitutional exemption from the law but died earlier this month without resorting to assisted suicide.
Read more:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Assisted+suicide+risky+allowing+demeans+value+life+federal+says/7447066/story.html#ixzz2AM32CGOR

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Study: Assisted suicide helpers distressed

http://worldradio.ch/wrs/news/wrsnews/study-assisted-suicide-helpers-distressed.shtml?32735

Thursday, October 4, 2012

One in four people who accompany someone to commit assisted suicide suffer massive psychological distress, according to a new study by the University of Zurich.

Researchers at the university spoke to 85 people who went with a family member or close friend to an EXIT euthanasia clinic.

A quarter suffered from post traumatic stress disorder while 16 percent had depression. Five percent were found to have long-term grief.

The interviews were carried out one to two years after the assisted death of loved ones.

The results state that problems can surface 14 to 24 months later and that a death not from natural causes was a heavy burden for those who supported the deceased.

Although the research didn’t include a direct comparison with the effects of a natural death on a loved one, the study was compared to others.

This showed the researchers that post traumatic stress disorder was more common for people close to an assisted suicide case rather than a natural death.

The results have been published in the October issue of the journal European Psychiatry.

Thursday, August 16, 2012

UK: Legal Challenge to Euthanasia Law Rejected


Below is a media release from the Judiciary of England and Wales regarding today's decision to reject a legal challenge to a legal prohibition on euthanasia.  "[A]ny change to the law must be a matter for Parliament to decide."  To read the original print version, click here.


Tony Nicklinson v Ministry of Justice
AM v Director of Public Prosecutions and others
High Court (Administrative Court)
16 August 2012

SUMMARY TO ASSIST THE MEDIA

The High Court (Lord Justice Toulson, Mr Justice Royce and Mrs Justice Macur) has today rejected challenges to the legal ban on voluntary euthanasia, and to the policy of the Director of Public Prosecutions in cases of assisted dying, brought by two men suffering from “locked in syndrome”.

The Court recognised that the cases raise profoundly difficult ethical, social and legal issues, but it judged that any change to the law must be a matter for Parliament to decide.

Monday, July 9, 2012

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.

Sunday, July 1, 2012

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.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

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.

Monday, June 18, 2012

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").

Monday, June 11, 2012

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.