1

N u m b e r 156 November 2014

The Euthanasia Prevention Coali-tion held its National Symposium on October 4 in Ottawa – Gatineau.

The keynote speaker, Gerbert van Loenen from the Netherlands, spoke about the changes that have occurred in his country since the legalization of

euthanasia. Van Loenen, a journalist, explained how eutha-nasia began as an act for people who were terminally ill and suffering, but that it hasn’t stopped there.

Through an historical account and stories, van Loenen explained how euthanasia has expanded to include new-borns with disabilities, people with psychiatric conditions and dementia, people with depression and more. He told the recent story of a 63 year-old healthy man who last year died by euthanasia. He worked all his life as a civil servant; he never got married, never made friends and asked for eutha-nasia because he said that he had no reason to live and he was psychologically suffering.

Nic Steenhout and Dr Catherine Ferrier spoke about the euthanasia bill that had passed in Quebec. Dr Will John-ston spoke about the politics and direction of the Canadian Medical Association. Amy Hasbrouck and Heidi Janz spoke about the experience of people with disabilities related to euthanasia. Diana Ford spoke about her experience with her father’s death and Alex Schadenberg spoke about the up-to-date information related to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Lunch with Members of Parliament

On October 2, Toujours Vivant – Not Dead Yet and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition organized a press confer-ence and a luncheon for Members of Parliament.

Amy Hasbrouck from Toujours Vivant – Not Dead Yet, Hugh Scher, legal counsel for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, and Nic Steenhout from Vivre dans la Dignité held a press conference at 10:30 am on October 2.

At noon, disability leaders - Amy Hasbrouck, Catherine Frazee, Hugh Scher, Nic Steenhout, Steve Passmore, Heidi Janz, Bonnie Sawatzky and Norm Kunc - spoke about their opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide with Mem-bers of Parliament.

Disability Strategy and Planning Meeting

On October 3, Toujours Vivant – Not Dead Yet held a strategy and planning meeting. Disability leaders from across Canada attended this excellent event that combined speakers and workshops. Presentations were also made via the internet by Diane Coleman, the founder of Not Dead Yet, Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick, the Director of EPC Internation-al and Catherine Frazee, the incredible emeritus professor of the disability studies program at Ryerson University.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition held its National Symposium

William-Melchert Dinkel, the former Minnesota nurse who admitted to counseling the suicide death of Canadian teen, Nadia Kajouji, was sentenced to 178 days in prison for his role in the deaths of Kajouji and Mark Drybrough from Coventry, England.

Melchert-Dinkel was convicted a second time in the deaths of Kajouji and Drybrough on September 9.

The first conviction, in October 2012, was appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Melchert-Dinkel claimed that counseling suicide was protected by free speech. In March, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered the re-trial when they agreed that counseling suicide was protected by freedom of speech, while the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the remaining parts of the assisted suicide act.

Melchert-Dinkel is planning to appeal his conviction.

Former Minnesota nurse will go to jail in the suicide death of Canadian teen

Visit our News and Information Website: www.euthanasianewsworld.com

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Newsletter – 156 – November 20142

By Catherine Frazee

In his article of Oct. 9, Desmond Tutu emphasizes the importance of lan-guage on the sensitive issue of medical-ly assisted dying. In the spirit of advan-cing a respectful dialogue, I must urge him to consider the deeper meanings of dignity, and how our experience of hu-

man dignity leads disabled Canadians to a very different conclusion about end-of-life interventions.

Last week I had the opportunity to share my thoughts with a small group of parliamentarians on the subject of medically assisted dying.

I was not alone. Several friends and colleagues from the disability rights community were each given five minutes to present an argument against amending the criminal code to sanction medically assisted dying.

One spoke about the discriminatory implication of offering state-sanctioned assistance not for everyone, but only for persons who are frail, very ill, or seriously disabled. Another presented a chilling account of the “creep” of euthanasia in permissive jurisdictions.

Another spoke from personal experience, about the time someone said to him, “I don’t know how you do it; I’d rather be dead than in a wheelchair.” There were nods of recognition around the room. This is a common experience.

I spoke about dignity. The suffering that medically as-sisted dying is said to alleviate most often correlates with loss of dignity. I don’t believe that anyone should take a position on medically assisted dying without first under-standing what dignity is, and what it is not.

I say this as a person whose naked body is handled daily by persons who love me, or persons employed by me, or perfect strangers with skills and capacities I my-self lack. I say this as a person who considers immobility, incontinence, impairment and dependence to be routine conditions of life. I say this as a person who cannot bathe or breathe or swallow or feed without the aid of some device.

No one should argue that my life is undignified be-cause of whatever tubes I had to be hooked up to this morning before I could settle down to write these words. The same, I submit, should be said of Craig Schonegevel.

Dignity does not spring from some extraordinary fort-ress of determination encoded within us. Dignity doesn’t work like that. Dignity is fragile and ephemeral.

Allow yourself to be consumed by all of the perceived misfortunes of my predicament, and suddenly, my dig-nity will be shattered.

See me as anything but your equal in human worth, and at that moment, in that glance, with that sorrowful sigh, you have robbed me of dignity. Speak of willful death as a reasonable choice for persons afflicted with the presumed indignity of physical incapacity, and my dignity is undermined. This is not some trivial conceit. For my dignity is utterly bound up with your respect for my way of life. It is not abstract, and it is not a solitary attribute. Dignity is social.

It doesn’t come from inside of me. It comes from others, always, in relation to me.

In our opposition to legislative amendments that would permit medical assistance to end one’s own life, disabled citizens are seeking to advance a vital truth, one that is imperative for our fellow citizens to embrace as well. Our physical and cognitive powers are not the source of human dignity. As these powers attenuate, human life does not lose its inherent value.

At the heart of this debate, we must choose between competing visions of our social fabric. Shall we uncritic-ally submit to the voracious demands of individual liber-ty no matter what the social cost? Or shall we agree that there are limits to individual freedom, limits that serve all of us when we are vulnerable and in decline?

Let us seize this moment in our nation’s history to af-firm that all states of living are inherently dignified and worthy of our utmost respect.

This article was published in the Ottawa Citizen on Octo-ber 15, 2015.

Catherine Frazee is Professor Emerita at the School of Dis-ability Studies at Ryerson University, and former chief com-missioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

There can be dignity in all states of life

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Newsletter – 156 – November 2014 3

Open letter to canadians on euthanasia and assisted suicide by physicians’ alliance against euthanasia

Physicians are asked to sign this open letter at Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia website: http://collectifmedecins.org/ References on website.

On Wednesday October 15th the Supreme Court of Canada will hear the appeal in the Carter case. It will decide whether the Criminal Code’s prohibition of assisted suicide is constitutional. If the prohibition is struck down, doctors will be involved in assisted suicide and euthanasia. As physicians, we have fol-lowed with a growing sense of dismay the public de-bate over whether to introduce into medical practice the act of inf licting death. We write to you today to give a medical perspective on this crucial debate.

It is a long standing commitment of the medical profession ‘To cure sometimes, to relieve suffering often, and to comfort always.’ It is a breach of that commitment to inf lict death. The World Medical As-sociation [1] and the near-totality of national medical associations agree that intentionally ending patients’ lives is not an ethically acceptable part of the phys-ician’s role. This opinion is shared by the World Pal-liative Care Alliance [2] and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians [3] in their assertion that euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are not now, and have never been, part of palliative care practice.

Both the effectiveness of palliative care and the fact that most Canadians who die have limited access to specialised palliative care services [4] are well rec-ognized. Palliative care affirms life, regards dying as a normal process, and intends neither to hasten nor postpone death. In the 40 years since palliative care was introduced into Canada the ability to control pain and other symptoms is improving constantly, although problems of equitable access persist. This is a grave injustice and, many believe, a breach of human rights, but the remedy is not to legalize eutha-nasia and assisted suicide, it’s to provide the support dying people need. Indeed, legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide would introduce further injustices: those to older, disabled or ill people who may not even be dying but for whom the mere existence of such practices would be a source of subtle but effect-ive pressure to request them, and which would place them in grave danger of abuse.

In the few countries that have attempted this haz-ardous social experiment, permissive laws, despite safeguards to restrict their application to a small number of extreme cases, are rapidly extended to include individuals bearing little resemblance to the initial target group. In Belgium, euthanasia is per-

mitted by law if a patient requests it voluntarily and suffers from “constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated, resulting from a serious and incurable disorder caused by ill-ness or accident” [5]. Despite this seemingly restrict-ive rule, in recent years Belgians have been legally euthanized for suffering arising from conditions ranging from glaucoma [6] to depression [7], to im-prisonment [8], to multiple chronic conditions in the elderly [9], to a desire to avoid being a burden on one’s children [10]. The situation in the Netherlands is much the same [11]. It would be naive to believe that some Canadians would not give in to the same pressures to use euthanasia in an ever expanding range of circumstances – that is, the logical slippery slope is unavoidable.

In the U.S. state of Oregon, legal physician-assist-ed suicides are not required to be supervised [12] and the doctor is rarely present [13]. Data are based en-tirely on physician self-reporting [14] and informa-tion on individual cases is not available even to the police [15]. This opens the door to abuse of older and vulnerable citizens.

With good reason the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Rodriguez decision in 1993, con-cluded that there was no measure short of the cur-rent law that would meet the objectives of Parliament to protect the public and, in particular, vulnerable members of the public.

As medical professionals we have an obligation to protect not only the patients under our care, but also the population as a whole. The majority of physicians in Canada oppose legalization of euthanasia and as-sisted suicide [16, 17]. A few are attempting to take a neutral stance but such a position is untenable. If you are not against these practices you are necessar-ily for them. A purported neutral stance on the part of physicians would be an abdication of our duty as medical doctors to put the well-being of our patients before political or other considerations.

Legalization of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide would expose you and your loved ones to grave risks, including that of wrongful death. Legis-lators and doctors have an urgent duty to ensure this never happens, for clear reasons of public safety. We urge all Canadians to heed the warning signs from those places which have made the mistake of en-trenching these practices, and to oppose their intro-duction into health care in our country.

Harry Lamb Sales Representative

Sutton Group Preferred RealtyLondon ON • 519-471-8888

Place Your Ad Here Call Our Office

Reach Our ReadersLondon ON • 1-877-439-3348

Michael A. Menear, LawyerMenear, Worrad and Associates

100 Fullarton Street London, Ontario • 519-672-7370

4

The East Coast Conference Against Assisted Suicide is being held on Saturday, November 22, 2014 at Double Tree Hotel in Windsor Locks, Connecticut near the Bradley International Airport.

This conference will be a unifying and educational effort by leaders and groups that opposed the assisted suicide bills in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New Jersey.

There will also be a leaders’ planning meeting at the same location on Friday November 21.

To register go to this website:http://assistedsuicideconference.eventzilla.net

Contact us at: info@epcc.ca or 1-877-439-3348

EPC received significant media attention on the day of the Supreme Court hearing, even though in general, the media has been very one-sided.

EPC legal counsel, Hugh Scher, debated euthanasia lob-by lawyer, Grace Prastine, on CBC’s Power and Politics. Scher stated:

“Nobody should be forced to suffer to death or kill themselves, but those should not be the policy choices Canadians are left with,” he said on the CBC program.“There isn’t one Supreme Court in the world that rec-

ognizes a constitutional right to die. The absolute ban against assisted suicide and euthanasia remains the norm in most of the world, with the exception of seven jurisdictions.”

Taylor Hyatt, a student at Carlton University in Ottawa, was interviewed by CBC the day before the trial. Hyatt spoke about assisted suicide as a double standard for people with disabilities.

Hyatt, a member of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair. She worries push-ing for physician-assisted suicide will affect society’s im-pression of people with disabilities, suggesting some will think people are “better off dead than disabled.”

Hyatt said there is a double standard when it comes to people with disabilities and physician-assisted suicide.

“It’s like you’re standing at the edge of a cliff … as an able-bodied person, the population will extend its hand to you to say, ‘Here there’s help for you,’” Hyatt said. “I feel like for the disabled population, they’ll push you over.”

Conference Against Assisted Suicide

November 22, 2014

Carter Case in the Supreme Court of CanadaOn October 15, 2014, the Carter euthanasia case was

heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. The day was filled with presentations from the Crown (Canadian government) and the BC Civil Liberties Association (representing the pro-euthanasia groups) and 13 of 24 interveners.

The Crown argued that the assisted suicide act was not discriminatory, in nature, but rather it protected people at a vulnerable time of their life. The euthanasia lobby argued that Canada’s assisted suicide and euthanasia laws dis-criminate against people with disabilities, who are unable to commit suicide without assistance.

The EPC submission stated that Canada’s assisted suicide law is necessary and no half-way measure could achieve the legitimate objective of pro-tecting the vulnerable and pro-moting life. EPC also argued that laws related to euthanasia and assisted suicide should be decided by parliament and not the court.The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada is expected in six months.

Alex Schadenberg was interviewed by several media out-lets including the CTV Power Play program, CHCH Square Off program, Sun TV, and many radio stations.

On October 16, Alex debated a leader of the euthanasia lobby in Sarnia, Ontario in front of a large audience.

We need you, our supporters, to write letters to the media and politicians. Silence will not help the cause of protecting people from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Euthanasia Prevention coalition In Media