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.

Ethan Gutmann: An Update to "Bloody Harvest" & "The Slaughter"

Gutmann

Ethan Gutmann, author of "The Slaughter," introduces a new report showing that 1.5 million people have been killed by the Chinese regime through harvesting organs, i.e., from prisoners of conscience.

The basis of the report is a meticulous examination of the transplant programs of hundreds of hospitals in China, drawing on media reports, official propaganda, medical journals, hospital websites and a vast amount of deleted websites found in archive. It analyzes hospital revenue, bed counts, bed utilization rates, surgical personnel, training programs, state funding and more.

To view the video, click here.  To view the report, click here.

The organ harvesting story was first brought to the attention of the public through the book, "Bloody Harvest," by Canadians David Matas, a Winnipeg-based lawyer and David Kilgour, another lawyer and a former Member of Parliament.

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.

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.

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.

Media Release: Carter has been proved wrong; new law needed to prohibit assisted suicide & euthanasia

FRIDAY, MAY 20, 2016

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Canada’s Bill C-14, which seeks to codify assisted suicide and euthanasia, is a recipe for elder abuse. Recommendations by the Senate Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee do not solve the bill’s problems. The bill violates the Canadian Supreme Court case, Carter v Canada.  

Recent news stories have proven Carter wrong. This justifies a new look at the issue, including time for more study or a new law prohibiting euthanasia and assisted suicide. 

Press Release: Bill C-14 is a Recipe for Elder Abuse & Contrary to the Carter Case

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

For pdf, click here. 

Dore:  "Canada’s Bill C-14, which seeks to codify assisted suicide and euthanasia, is a recipe for elder abuse.”

“The bill is contrary to the Canadian Supreme Court case, Carter v Canada, which envisioned a ‘carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards.’”

Contact: Margaret Dore:   (206) 697-1217
margaretdore@margaretdore.com

Ottawa, ON - Lawyer Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, which has been fighting efforts to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in the United States, Canada and other countries, made the following statement in connection with Canada’s Bill C-14, which seeks to codify assisted suicide and euthanasia into law.

"The bill refers to assisted suicide and euthanasia as 'medical assistance in dying,' but there is no requirement that a person be dying,” said Dore. “‘Eligible’ persons may have years, even decades, to live.”

Dore said, "The bill is a recipe for elder abuse. The patient's heir, who will financially benefit from the patient's death, is allowed to actively participate in signing the patient up for the lethal dose. There is no oversight over administration." Dore elaborated, "In the case of assisted suicide, not even a doctor or other medically trained person is required to be present at the death.  If the patient struggled, who would know?"

“The bill is a response to the Canadian Supreme Court decision, Carter v. Canada, which found a right to assisted suicide and euthanasia for ‘competent’ adults who ‘clearly consent,’” said Dore. The bill, however, does not comply with these requirements. Dore explained, “The bill does not even use the word ‘competent,’ except in the bill’s preamble, which does not have force of law. The bill violates Carter, which requires that the patient be a ‘competent adult.’”

“Carter also envisioned  a ‘carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards,’” said Dore. “This would at the very least require oversight when the lethal dose is administered to the patient. The bill does not do so. There is also no required monitoring or investigation after the patient’s death.”

Dore explained, “The bill contains one reference to ‘monitoring,’ saying that the Minister of Health ‘may’ make regulations ‘for the purpose of monitoring deaths’ under the bill.’ Saying that regulations ‘may’ be made does not constitute a ‘carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards.’ The bill does not comply with Carter.”

“Under current law, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act requires that all inmate deaths be investigated,” said Dore. “Bill C-14, however, amends the Act to create an exception for inmates who die by assisted suicide or euthanasia, to thereby discourage investigations.” Dore continued, “With existing investigations discouraged, the idea of a ‘carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards’ is undermined. Carter is once again violated.”

Dore added, “The bill also amends the Pension Act and the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-Establishment Act to deem that any deaths occurring via assisted suicide and euthanasia be treated as a result of an ‘illness, disease or disability.” Dore  said, “The significance is a legal inability to prosecute criminal behavior, for example, in the case of an outright murder for the money. The cause of death, as a matter of law, is  an ‘illness, disease or disability.’ The bill thereby creates the perfect crime.”

“Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ‘everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice,’” said Dore. “It is not fundamentally just to allow people to be killed for their money or due to another bad motive under a regime that has no required oversight at the death, no required monitoring and which deems deaths to be the result of an ‘illness, disease or disability,’ as a matter of law, to thereby prevent prosecution.” Dore concluded, “The bill, which creates the perfect crime, must be a violation of the Charter.”

For more information, see:

1.  Margaret Dore, Legal/Policy Analysis of Bill C-14, prepared for Prime Minister Trudeau and Members of the Senate and the House of Commons, May 15, 2016.  View here, here and here. 

2.  Margaret K. Dore, "'Death with Dignity': What Do We Advise Our Clients?," King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, May 2009.

3.  Nina Shapiro, "Terminal Uncertainty: Washington’s new ‘Death With Dignity’ law allows doctors to help people commit suicide-once they’ve determined that the patient has only six months to live. But what if they’re wrong?" The Seattle Weekly, 01/14/09, available at https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/terminal-uncertainty-w-o-ad.pdf

- 00 -

"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).

Canada WIP first nations Kate Kelly Regarding Suicide Among First Nations People

To the Editors,

Re your online article, “Suicide among Canada's First Nations: Key numbers”:

Having worked in First Nations/Inuit communities for nearly 10 years, I can attest to the devastating fatalism regarding suicide.

Indigenous communities do not shy away from the reality of death, and there are no sentimental, humorous anecdotes told at a sanitized memorial service.

The community comes to a standstill: school is closed; the gymnasium is often the site of the wake and funeral service. Generally, the entire community views the deceased in an open coffin, and grief - felt by all, from children to elders - is palpable and intense.

The advisory committee reporting on assisted suicide and euthanasia recommends that self-diagnosed "suffering" adults - anyone over 18  - and "mature minors" - be given the "right" to euthanasia. Somehow I doubt any committee members have attended the open-coffin funeral of an indigenous youth who has committed suicide.

The Carter Decision: Not Safe for Doctors

The Carter decision has been heralded as legalizing "physician-assisted death," more commonly known as physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.  A closer reading of the decision reveals, however, that these practices are not "legalized" in the sense that they are safe for doctors to perform.  This will be the case until the expiration of a 12 month suspension AND the imposition of regulations by parliament to create safe harbors for practice. 

Carter merely provides that the Criminal Code provisions prohibiting physician-assisted death are of no force or effect when three factors are satisfied: patient competency; clear consent; and a "grievous and irremediable medical condition."  (Decision, paragraph 147).  The problem is that physicians are not always right regarding these factors.

Consider, the Victorio Noval case, in California, where a hospital performed a "terminal extubation," causing his death.  http://legalstuff.kaiserpapers.org/victorino-noval.html  After the fact, the hospital learned that Noval's daughters had lied about his condition for the purpose of a quick inheritance, and that consent from his son had been required, but not obtained. Id.  The hospital and other parties have now been sued.  Id.  Hospital staff are reportedly refusing to testify in order to avoid incriminating themselves on criminal charges.Id.

If, by contrast, Noval had died under a regulatory scheme such as Washington's death with dignity act, there would have been no basis for liability as long as the act was used.  See e.g., Washington State's death certificate instruction for prosecutors, which requires that a death be treated as "Natural" as long as the act was "used."  To view the instruction, please click here.
.
Without the imposition of a similar regulatory scheme by Parliament, no doctor who assists a suicide, or who performs a euthanasia, can be assured of his or her safety to do so.  Even after the 12 month suspension period, doctors will be at risk of homicide charges because, like the hospital in  Mr. Noval's case, they learn after the fact that they were wrong on the facts of the case.  Doctors go forward under Carter at their peril.

The Perils of Assisted Suicide

11:15 a.m. EDT, October 2, 2014

In Montana there was a recent case in which a man was charged with "aiding or soliciting" the suicide of a 16-year-old girl. He is accused of trying to prevent her from testifying against him in another matter by getting her to kill herself.

This story illustrates a fundamental problem with legalizing assisted suicide. The assistant can have his or her own agenda to encourage someone to kill themselves.

Bradley D. Williams, Hamilton, Mont.

Read more:http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-assisted-suicide-20141002,0,1616588.story#ixzz3F1VD5Sx5

Family members banned from care facilities threaten legal action

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/family-members-banned-care-facilities-threaten-legal-action-014019928.html

People who say they're being prevented from visiting family members at long-term care facilities in Alberta, but not told why, are asking the government to step in.

'I was threatened by the physician," said Huguette Hebert, who was banned for a day from seeing her husband staying at a Covenant Health facility in Edmonton, after she asked to stay in the room while he was changed.

She said she wanted to check for bedsores.

"It's time that somebody does something at the government level, like the minister of health," she said at a news conference Thursday. "You know my name, I really request that you intervene now."

Hebert is one of many Albertans who've had problems seeing their loved ones at continuing care facilities, says lobby group Public Interest Alberta.

Shauna McHarg hasn't seen her father in his care facility for two years ­ and has severely restricted visiting hours with her mother.

"They give no reason," she said. "My parents are aging. This started in 2010. It needs to end immediately."

McHarg appealed to the Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner, but Covenant Health refuses to release the reason why she was banned, even fighting the matter in court last week.

People banned from facilities should have more options, said the PIA lawyer Allan Garber.

"These decisions are being made without the due process of law," he said. "And that is a fundamental problem. Especially when we know the people on the other side are frail, elderly people."

Covenant Health said it bans visitors only on rare occasions and only when it believes safety of the patients is in jeopardy.

But the facilities have all the power, leaving banned family members with little recourse, said PIA executive director Bill Moore-Kilgannon.

"They cannot just ban people from seeing their loved ones without a strict process, evidence and guidelines," he said.

"If the government is not willing to act to empower families with real due process, then we will explore taking legal action to represent the rights of these families to be together," Moore-Kilgannon said.

"Is there a way to allow a person to end his life without making someone else a criminal?"

By Margaret Dore, Esq.*

A legislator considering an assisted suicide law asked me this question: "Is there a way to allow a person to end his life without making someone else a criminal?"

This was my (slightly edited) response:

People take their lives all the time.  One of my cousins shot himself and another threw himself in front of a train.  There was no criminality involved.  Also, if people are in pain, palliative care laws allow medical personnel to give patients copious amounts of drugs, including up to sedation, which can hasten the patient's death. This is the principal of double effect.  This is legal.  For more information, read theAffidavit of Kenneth Stevens, MD, page 3, paragraph 13.

There is also palliative care abuse in which no one seems to be held accountable, except for maybe one case in California where doctors relied on a wealthy patient's daughters, who said that their father was really bad off and didn't want treatment, which was not the case.  At least, that's what's claimed by the man's son. See William Dotinga, "Grim Complaint Against Kaiser Hospital," Court House News Service, February 6, 2012.

I've had like 15-20 contacts in the past year by people upset about their family member being suddenly off'd by medical personnel and/or having DNR's put on family members/friends without the patient's consent.  My caregiver friends also talk about guarding their patients in the hospital.  Here are some letters from Montana.  http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2013/04/dont-give-doctors-more-power-to-abuse.html

Here's a letter from Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. The letter talks about doctors being quick with the morphine and also regarding the conduct of an adult son shortly after our assisted suicide law was passed ("an adult child of one of our clients asked about getting the pills [to kill the father].  It wasn't the father saying that he wanted to die"). http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2012/07/dear-montana-board-of-medical-examiners.html  Here's a letter from a wife about how she was afraid to leave her husband alone after a doctor pitched assisted suicide to her husband. http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2013/01/i-was-afraid-to-leave-my-husband-alone.html

There is also the issue that people who say they want to die don't mean it, as with any suicide.  See http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/what-people-mean-when-they-say-they.html

I've had two clients whose fathers signed up for the Oregon/Washington assisted suicide acts.  With the first case, one side of the family wanted the father to use the act and the other side didn't.  He spent the last months of his life torn over whether of not he should kill himself.  His daughter was also traumatized.  He died a natural death.  There is a Swiss study that you might be interested in, that 1 out of 5 family members were traumatized by witnessing the legal assisted suicide of a family member.  See http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/family-members-traumatized-eur-psych-2012.pdf

In my other case, the father had two suicide parties and it's not clear that it was voluntary.  My client, his son, was told that his dad had said "You're not killing me, I'm going to bed").  Regarding the next day, my client was told that his dad was already high on alcohol when he drank the lethal dose.  But then the person telling him this changed his story.  In Montana, Senator Jeff Essman, made a relevant observation regarding this point:

"[All] the protections [in Oregon's law] end after the prescription is written.  [The proponents] admitted that the provisions in the Oregon law would permit one person to be alone in that room with the patient. And in that situation, there is no guarantee that that medication is self-administered.

So frankly, any of the studies that come out of the state of Oregon's experience are invalid because no one who administers that drug . . . to that patient is going to be turning themselves in for the commission of a homicide."

Senate Judiciary Hearing on SB 167 on February 10, 2011

I, however, doubt that a person in Oregon could be prosecuted.  If you read the act carefully, there is no requirement of patient consent to administration of the lethal dose, and to the extent that's ambiguous, there's the rule of lenity.  In Washington State, prosecutors are required to report assisted suicide deaths as "Natural" - no matter what - at least, that's what the regulation says: http://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Documents/5300/DWDAMedCoroner.pdf   How can you prosecute someone for homicide if the death is required to be reported as "Natural?"

Here in Washington, we have already had some informal proposals to expand the scope of our assisted suicide act.  One in particular disturbed me.  A Seattle Times column suggested euthanasia as a solution for people unable to support themselves, which would be involuntary euthanasia.  See Jerry Large, "Planning for old age at a premium," March 8, 2012, which states:

"After Monday's column,  . . . a few [readers] suggested that if you couldn't save enough money to see you through your old age, you shouldn't expect society to bail you out. At least a couple mentioned euthanasia as a solution."  (Emphasis added)

So, if you worked hard and paid taxes all your life and then your company pension plan goes belly up, this is how you want society to pay you back?

As a Democrat, I see us as looking out for the little guy, not passing laws to protect perpetrators, healthcare systems, etc. from legitimate claims.  I hope that you will vote against any effort to legalize assisted suicide/euthanasia.

Thank you for writing me back.

Margaret Dore, Esq.

www.choiceillusion.org