Texas Lt Governor Supports Euthanasia by Virus for Gramps and Granny to Save the Economy – Patheos

Texas Lt Governor Dan Patrick. Photo Source: Wikimedia Commons share alike.

So now some of the so-called pro life people in the Republican Party are pushing for indirectly euthanizing elderly people for the sake of the economy.

This isnt coming from rank and file pseudo pro life people. Its coming for the top tier of political pro lifers who got elected by singing the song of the sanctity of human life.

The Lt Governor of Texas got on national tv and went all-out backing it.Texas Lt Governor Dan Patrick went on Tucker Carlson Tonight, a program on Fox News, and suggested that we end the fight to stop the Coronavirus in order to save the economy. His logic? Not that many people are dying and most of the people his proposal would kill would be older Americans.

In the course of the interview, he made this entirely specious statement:

Tucker, no one reached out to me and said, As a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren? And if thats the exchange, Im all in, Patrick said, later adding, My message is, lets get back to work. Lets get back to living. Lets be smart about it, and those of us who are 70-plus, well take care of ourselves.

First of all, the claim that somehow or other this would apply to him and endanger his little life is, in plain language, bull. Hes the Lt Governor of Texas. Hes already protected. If he gets sick, hell go to the head of the line for medical care, and he knows it.

What this pro life Republican what all the pro life Republicans who are talking this talk are doing is to promote a new kind of eugenics and euthanasia by neglect of a large segment of the population. He didnt mention useless eaters, but I imagine some heavily air-brushed and refitted form of that argument is coming.

The fact that this powerful man is using a stupid-as-a-stump appeal to patriotism and love of grandchildren to propose this atrocity just makes it more disgusting.

If you truly value the sanctity of human life, you dont support euthanasia by virus for large numbers of people for money. You just dont.Killing people is wrong. Killing people for money may just be even more wrong.

Im not surprised by how crude this mans argument is. Ive known for a long time that a lot of politicians and clergy who say they are pro life dont have the first clue what that means.

Im also not surprised by the smarmy way it is being presented. Open up a phony pro-lifer, and youll find a cesspool of smarm and phony piousness.

I understand that we are standing between an enraged tiger and an attacking bear. Its the economy on one side and the virus on the other, and the future is in the middle. I know that we are in a really tough situation. But I expect a bit more from our elected officials than sanctimonious claptrap and slimy appeals to a large segment of the population to march willingly into the arms of the Baals as human sacrifices to the stock market.

We could also use some religious leadership here. Are Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr, and Fr Pavone going to jump out there and say Lets forfeit the lives of all the old people or will they stand up to this attack on the sanctity of human life?

Im not holding my breath. I learned at the Kavanaugh confirmation that our religious leaders are highly selective when it comes to how they apply moral teachings. It appears that our religious leaders view morality as grind-you-down absolute for little people and those on the wrong political side. For those in power on the right political side, its all relative and not as important as serious issues of state.

Our liar president got us into this mess by flying around the country holding rallies and claiming the Coronavirus was a Democratic hoax instead of doing his job and taking action early on.

Now he wants to throw in the towel and let the virus loose in order to save the economy. He does not have the brains to get us out of the disaster he demagogued us into. He evidently cant think of any other way to sail the ship of state except by jettisoning large numbers of its citizens. He seems perfectly willing to kill lots of Americans.

Hes got his political hacks going on the Trump media and making appeals to euthanasia-by-virus for large numbers of the American people. Their solution is to deliberately and knowingly sacrifice the lives of a lot of Americans.

All the pious nonsense about how they would give their lives are lies. None of this applies to them.

Euthanasia is wrong boys and girls. Its murder.

From Yahoo News:

As the coronavirus continues to spread in the United States, forcing people to stay in their homes and causing an economic downturn, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick joined Tucker Carlson Tonight where he became a top-trending topic by suggesting we get back to our normal lives to save the economy even at great risk to the countrys senior citizens. Patrick, who turns 70 next week, believes its up to older Americans to take that risk.

Tucker, no one reached out to me and said, As a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren? And if thats the exchange, Im all in, Patrick said, later adding, My message is, lets get back to work. Lets get back to living. Lets be smart about it, and those of us who are 70-plus, well take care of ourselves.

Read the original post:

Texas Lt Governor Supports Euthanasia by Virus for Gramps and Granny to Save the Economy - Patheos

Legalise voluntary euthanasia, Queensland government health panel recommends – The Guardian

Queensland should legalise voluntary assisted dying for terminally ill adults, the governments health committee has found.

A year-long investigation to gauge public opinion on voluntary euthanasia has determined most Queenslanders are in favour of it. It is the first time the state has ever considered voluntary assisted dying.

Currently, theres no option to help terminally ill Queenslanders die.

The committee found that every four days in Queensland, a terminally ill person takes their own life.

This must stop, the committee chair and Labor MP Aaron Harper wrote in a report tabled in parliament on Tuesday. Suicide should never be the only option for Queenslanders suffering at end of life.

This is just one of the many reasons the majority of our committee chose to support a recommendation for more choice for people suffering from an advanced progressive or neurodegenerative condition, through access to a voluntary assisted dying scheme.

A sample bill has already been drafted by Queensland University of Technology professors Ben White and Lindy Wilmot.

Its an excellent bill, the president of Dying with Dignity Queensland, Jos Hall, said.

Advocates want to see voluntary assisted dying legislated before Octobers state election, but understand the response to the Covid-19 pandemic takes priority.

It needs to be dealt with as a matter of priority at the first available opportunity, Hall said. Knowing that over 80% of Queenslanders support voluntary assisted dying, regardless of who forms the next government, we would like to see this dealt with.

We would be pleased to work with whichever party forms government if this is not dealt [with] in this parliamentary term.

The work to draft a bill could start now, said the chief executive of Go Gentle Australia, Kiki Paul. Obviously, the worlds attention is, rightly, on the coronavirus emergency. But regardless, Covid-19 should not stand in the way of good, evidence-based law reform.

The state government must accept these recommendations and begin the necessary work to fulfil the wishes of the Queensland people.

The committee of parliamentarians recommended euthanasia be limited to Australian citizens or permanent residents in Queensland with the capacity to make decisions.

To be eligible, patients must be diagnosed with an advanced or progressively terminal chronic or neurodegenerative condition that cannot be eased. Those with a mental health illness should not be ruled out, so long as they can make decisions.

Timeframes for a persons assisted death should not be proposed, the committee recommended, in recognition of the complex, subjective and unpredictable nature of terminal illnesses.

Continued here:

Legalise voluntary euthanasia, Queensland government health panel recommends - The Guardian

Remember the Party of Terri Schiavo? – New York Magazine

Protesters demanding political intervention to keep Terri Schiavo on life support. Photo: Matt May/Getty Images

You dont have to know much political history to become deeply unsettled by the recent public muttering by selected conservative voices that the benefits of reopening the economy might justify the otherwise avoidable deaths of a lot of unproductive old and sick folk who could succumb to the coronavirus pandemic. As my colleague Sarah Jones argued compellingly:

The views expressed by [Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan] Patrick and [First Things editor Rusty] Reno and [Trump adviser Stephen] Moore separate human life into categories. In one box, there are people worth saving. In the other, there are people we ought to let die What they contemplate is not quite mass murder, but a sort of planned negligent homicide. Patrick doesnt want to build gas chambers. He just wants to let nature take its course. The fit will survive the cull.

And here history is instructive. Eugenics, as a form of human culling, was a pseudoscientific movement that gained lethal strength in the early 20th century and became official state doctrine in various regimes where murdering or starving useless eaters was regarded as essential to the public welfare or even to the health and welfare of the human species. Horror of human culling was deeply bred into the generations of Americans and Europeans who sought to identify civilization itself with the rejection of mass homicide. That this horror might be fading is disturbing enough. But that the idea is posting a comeback among American conservatives is particularly shocking, since not that very long ago that political tribe habitually accused liberals of an openness to euthanasia as a byproduct of legalized abortion.

Remember Terri Schiavo, whose cause embroiled the country during the spring of 2005? She was the severely brain-damaged Florida woman whose agonized husband became embroiled in a legal battle with her parents as he sought to terminate life support, which he felt certain she would have wished. That legal battle became intensely political as Terri Schiavo was adopted as a sort of mascot by the anti-abortion movement as evidence of its claim that the indifference to life exhibited by legalized abortion would eventually lead to euthanasia. Florida governor Jeb Bush spearheaded a state government intervention in her case in 2003 to force reinsertion of a feeding tube, and later Jebs brother signed emergency legislation, enacted during a remarkable March 2005 special session of the Republican-controlled Congress, to assert federal jurisdiction over Schiavos fate. She was finally allowed a dignified death when federal courts refused to overrule a local judges decision to let the poor woman go.

Wheres that Republican Party as some of its opinion leaders express equanimity about tolerating, if not encouraging, mass death in the cause of giving the economy a nice lift prior to the 2020 elections? Whos the Party of Death (a common epithet for Democrats among anti-abortion activists) now?

Its particularly striking that there are elements of the very anti-abortion movement that fought to keep Schiavo alive that are expressing pleasure over the net effect of the coronavirus, since it has allowed some GOP lawmakers to halt abortions as a byproduct of elective surgery bans:

Texas Republican congressional candidate Kathaleen Wall thanked Governor Greg Abbott for signing an executive order last week that deemed abortions medically unnecessary, with Wall claiming the coronavirus may now save more lives than it will take.

Wall, who advanced from the 22nd Congressional District Republican primary earlier this month, has posted several articles discussing pregnancy and coronavirus and touting President Donald Trumps ability to put partisan politics aside as he fights the COVID-19 pandemic. But Walls March 24 Facebook post claiming coronavirus will save more lives this week than it takes created exactly that type of partisan fighting between pro-choice and anti-abortion residents.

Im not calling Republicans generally eugenicists or fans of euthanasia. But it is a sign of the cult of personality into which this party and its ideological allies have succumbed that the desire to lift Trump to reelection on the wings of economic recovery is so powerful, pro-life values be damned. And conservatives who do know their history need to shout down the Evangelists of GDP ber alles with special determination.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

More here:

Remember the Party of Terri Schiavo? - New York Magazine

EuthanasiaPro and Con | The Nation

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

IT SEEMS inconceivable that in a happier world of the future no provision should be made for putting out of their misery persons suffering from an excessively painful and incurable disease. We shall have to find some legal way to accord to human beings the relief we accord to animals.Ad Policy

Euthanasiaor mercy killingcan be practiced by commission, which is illegal, or by omission, which is not. A doctor cannot he punished for intentionally neglecting to administer some remedy or stimulant which might prolong life, although he may be accused of incompetence and malpractice. I shall consider here only euthanasia by commission.

The present situation is utterly unfair to the individual physician who believes that the relief of suffering is one of his principal duties. Many medical practitioners undoubtedly resort to euthanasia, but since they do so secretly it is impossible to say how many. They feel compelled to commit a technical murder even though they must bear the whole responsibility. That is the unfair part. Situations like the recent one in New Hampshire must arise frequently, and why in that case the doctor reported his act is difficult to understand. (Why, too, did he inject air instead of merely giving an overdose of morphine?) Bigots and sticklers for legal technicalities will always try to prevent or punish humanitarian action by an individual physician. Since the decision rests with him alone, the doctor will rarely ask for the consent of either the patient or the relatives. The mercy killing is therefore done furtively, when it should be done candidly, serenely, and lawfully.

None of the various arguments against euthanasia have ever shaken my belief in its truly humane purpose. In the space at my disposal I can refer only to a few. One of the most frequently heard but also most superficial objections is that the Nazis practiced euthanasia. What loose thinking! The Nazis never asked the consent of patients or relatives. There was no mercy in their killings, only expediency.

The contention that a seemingly incurable condition might some day be cured by a new medical discovery hardly holds water. How can the hopeless cancer victim or the imbecile child of today benefit by a discovery of tomorrow? The laws regulating euthanasia must of course be flexible, and requirements based on present knowledge may be changed in the future.

Another objection to euthanasia stems from the possibility of fraud and abuse. But if the decision on merciful release is left to a government-appointed board of at least three personsfor instance, two medical men and one lawyer, who must be unanimous in its favorthis seems a weak argument. Surely legal experts can devise adequate safeguards.

There will always remain the opposition of those who ding to sentimental superstitions about the sacredness of life. Such an emotional attitude cannot be changed by any reasoning. But let me give an example of the sacredness of life.

A friend of mine, a professional man in his late sixties, suffered from an inoperable cancer of the liver which caused great accumulation of water in the abdominal cavity. At least once a week his abdomen had to be tapped to relieve the pressure. He suffered also from a chronic inflammation of the heart muscle, and the resulting circulatory weakness added to the complete hopelessness of the case. Bedridden in a hospital, he was kept alive by medical skill and expert nursing. Physicians and nurses did their duty. Sedatives were used, but in small doses they were often ineffective, and large doses were deemed contra-indicated.

My friend was not a man of means but had managed to save a few thousand dollars for his wife and for a handicapped child. His savings dwindled from week to week. The hospital expenses were high. The bill for oxygen alone, which he required frequently, was more than $20 a week. He was anxious to die to end his suffering and to preserve at least part of his savings. But he was a religious man and rejected any idea of suicide. He did not approve of euthanasia. He could only pray that death might come soon. When he was down to his last few dollars and had to worry how he would pay his next hospital bill and how his wife would pay the next months rent, then and only then did death come. There was not enough money left to bury him.

In this case even legalized euthanasia would have been out of the question since the religious convictions of the patient himself, and probably also of his wife, would have prevented him from making the application or giving his consent. But in innumerable cases such religious convictions do not exist.

I could have made this story a more effective argument for euthanasia by having the patient beg in vain for release, but I wanted to report a true experience. It is easy for the reader to visualize the increased suffering and the heightened tragedy when euthanasia is desired and unmercifully denied by society.

Euthanasia has been called pagan and indecent. One may well ask, which is betterpagan mercifulness, indecent compassion, or devout inhumanity?

EUTHANASIA is humane and merciful as an idea. It might be inhumane and dangerous as a practice. A progressive society should limit its power over human beings instead of expanding it. Strangely enough, many people who denounce capital punishment are in favor of euthanasia.

Legalizing euthanasia would be a disservice to the medical profession in that it would expand the power and responsibility of physicians, which are already almost unbearably great. The legal conditions proposedconsent of the patient or his family, decision by a state commissionwould create psychological and technical situations beyond human endurance.

Millions of people today live a hopeless and painful, even a socially useless, life without the benefit of an incurable disease. Should they be permitted to be candidates for euthanasia? Suffering is more easily accepted by the patient who really has a painful disease than by the neurotic person who produces his misery and pain by emotional processes. Even the incapacitated, agonized patient, in despair most of the time, may still get some joy from existence. His mood will change between longing for death and fear of death. Who would want to decide what should be done on such unsafe ground?

Last summer in Germany I witnessed a number of so-called euthanasia trials. The Nazis and their medical hangmen had murdered many thousands of mental patients, epileptics, feeble-minded, physically handicapped, asocial persons. Of course these crimes had no resemblance to the euthanasia some people want legalized. There was no consent, no indicationin most casesof unbearable suffering. However, the mass murder was justified as euthanasia, and one cannot help being deeply disturbed by the attitude of apparently honest physicians toward the orders of a perverted government and by the potential dangers of euthanasia as an instrument of public health.

Hopeless or incurable disease is an outmoded medical concept. We have seen in our lifetime a great number of incurable diseases become curable. Cancer may be curable the day after our application for euthanasia is signed.

It is also possible that undue influence would be exercised by the patients family. Suffering may seem more unbearable to the sensitive onlooker than to the sufferer himself. Chronic disease is always a social catastrophe whether death is imminent or not. Families are disrupted; their economic security is destroyed. But it is a sinister thought that economic considerations might influence the decision as to life or death. Death; in our society, has already too much taken on the character of an important financial transaction; a physician must frequently deal with patients who insist that they can afford death because of their insurance provisions, but not life with an incapacitating incurable disease. It seems clear to me that a public health insurance system should lessen the risk and the tragedy of chronic disease, but euthanasia is not a tolerable substitute for social and medical assistance.

The weapons of medicine for fighting pain and alleviating unbearable suffering have increased beyond any expectation. There is, indeed, no place for unbearable pain in modern medicine. If people die in torment it is because qualified medical or nursing care is unavailable. I have often been appalled by the undignified and careless way in which people are forced to die. Help in making birth easier is today a matter of routine, and almost no child comes into the world without expert assistance. Dying is often very difficult. It seems to me there ought to be well-trained death helpers among doctors and nurses just as there are birth helpers. But what is needed is wise guidance in the tremendous human experience of death, not the fulfillment of a more or less self-imposed death sentence by euthanasia.

Much can be done to integrate death into everybodys existence, to make our departure from human society as natural an event as our entrance. But I greatly doubt that legalized euthanasia is the best means. As a physician, I feel I would have to reject the power and responsibility of the ultimate decision.

Originally posted here:

EuthanasiaPro and Con | The Nation

Margaret Somerville: Withdrawing artificial hydration and nutrition – The Catholic Weekly

Reading Time: 8 minutesCaring for our elderly and terminally ill is expensive. But it is also a non-negotiable, fundamental duty of government.

It can be unethical to withdraw artificial hydration and nutrition and doing so can constitute a form of euthanasia that is, when its withdrawn with a primary intention to cause death. But withdrawal is not always unethical. Just as there are situations where it is justified to turn off a ventilator, so too there can be situations where it is justified to withdraw artificial hydration and nutrition.

Australias ABC networkrecently reported a storyof an elderly South Australian woman with dementia and breast cancer, who was not mentally competent and was being given hydration and nutrition through a nasogastric tube.

The tube fell out and the Public Advocate, who was the legal guardian of the patient and decision maker for her, determined that it should not be replaced. The reasons given included that the tube was burdensome, that it was prolonging suffering, and that replacing it would be contrary to the presumed wishes of the patient which is to say, if she were able to decide for herself, she would refuse replacement.

Two of the patients daughters, a Catholic bishop and the patients Catholic priest all disagreed with the Public Advocates decision and sought to change it. The daughters argued that the patient would want to live as long as possible and that replacing the tube was consistent with her Catholic faith.

The tube was not replaced, and the patient died five weeks later.

Now, despite being a truism, a very important principle in applied ethics is that good facts are essential for good ethics. The story as reported does not provide sufficient facts to judge whether or not the cessation of artificial feeding by means of a nasogastric tube was an ethically acceptable decision.

Its worth noting that hydration wasnotwithdrawn, but was delivered by intravenous line. So a pertinent question is: what justification was there for withdrawing nutrition, but not hydration? Either both hydration and nutrition were ethically appropriate life-prolonging treatment, or neither were.

One reason for the different approach to hydration as compared with nutrition could be that delivering total parenteral nutrition is a far more invasive procedure and more burdensome for the patient than, as occurred in this case, delivering hydration by way of an intravenous drip. The hydration might also have been continued as comfort care rather than life-prolonging treatment.

I was once consulted on a comparable case.

A young woman, who was diabetic and on haemodialysis for kidney failure, had a sudden cardiac arrest. She was revived and placed on a ventilator, but several days later, when she was due for dialysis, was diagnosed as being in a deep and irreversible coma.

Her parents decided that she should not receive dialysis, but they did not want the ventilator to be removed. We complied with their wishes in order to avoid further sufferingto them, not because we believed it was necessary treatment for the young woman. We explained in the case notes that was the reason the ventilator was continued. The young woman died a natural death from renal failure, at which time the ventilator was stopped.

What often causes great emotional trauma for a patients family, as was true in the South Australian case, is the thought of starving and dehydrating the patient to death in withdrawing artificial hydration and nutrition. There is, however, research that shows the hunger and thirst mechanisms in our brains shut down when we are dying.

The reflections of the Catholic Church on medical ethics are a frequently used reference point for bioethicists around the world. Even if they reject them, bioethicists respond to its concerns. This is especially true in a case such as the one we are considering, in which the patient and her carers are of that faith.

The Catholic Church teaches that food and fluids must always be offered and supplied if the person can take these orally. Pope John Paul II (now Saint Pope John Paul II) declared in a 2004 address that the same requirement of mandatory provision applies to artificial hydration and nutrition for people in a permanent vegetative state that is, hydration and nutrition not taken orally but delivered by other means.

With great respect, I believe that this statement needs to be nuanced. In that particular document its clear that the Pope wanted to protect vulnerable patients receiving artificial hydration and nutrition who are in a stable medical condition.

There are thousands of such patients in nursing homes and they have a right to humane basic care, as the Pope says. But the Pope might not have been thinking of the acceptability of withdrawal of artificial hydration and nutrition fromallpatients in a permanent vegetative state.

One problem is that if we apply this criterion to all such patients, it actually supports the euthanasia movement, as I shall explain below. But let me first attempt to make some distinctions that could help us to decide when withdrawal of artificial hydration and nutrition is ethical and when it is not.

It depends, first, on how we classify artificial hydration and nutrition: as simply food and water, or as medical treatment for a failed alimentary system (just as a ventilator is medical treatment for a failed respiratory system). If its just food and water and basic care, then ethically itmustbe provided. If it is medical treatment, that is not always the case.

I propose that, just as there are situations where it is justified to turn off a ventilator, so too there can be situations where it is justified to withdraw artificial hydration and nutrition. Both are forms of medical life-support treatment. And what if, for instance, a PEG feeding tube is painful or has become infected? What should doctors do then?

One distinction that is sometimes made in order to determine whether a given medical treatment must be offered is whether the intervention is ordinary or extraordinary medical treatment. The Catholic moral teaching is that the former must be provided, whereas the latter need not be.

Bishop Gregory OKellyis quotedas saying in his letter to the Office of the Public Advocate that, To deny food or drink, no matter how it is delivered, to such a person is to deny themordinary[emphasis added] means for sustaining life.

But this distinction betweenordinaryandextraordinarymedical treatment is not always clear cut. It can be that the patients quality of life is being judged and not the treatment. When a patient is in very fragile health in ICU, a certain treatment can be judged as extraordinary; but when the patient improves and is living in a nursing home, thesame treatmentfor the same personcan be characterised as ordinary.

In short, circumstances need to be taken into account. Moreover, whether a treatment is judged ordinary or extraordinary can be a very subjective and discretionary decision, which can leave it open to abuse.

Justifications for withdrawing life support treatment include that withdrawal is required to respect a patients right to refuse medical treatment, including through an advance directive that is, withdrawing treatment is required in order to respect a patients rights to inviolability (the right not to be touched without ones informed consent) and competent patients rights to autonomy.

Artificial hydration and nutrition would not be forcibly imposed on such a patient. Justifications also include: that the treatment is medically futile; that the burdens of continuing treatment outweigh any benefits; and that the treatment is prolonging dying, not living.

The Public Advocatedescribed the patient in questionas pre-terminal, which might or might not mean that she was dying, although her daughters denied that she was. With respect to the burden of the nasogastric tube, they are admittedly very uncomfortable, but its at least an open question whether the suffering involved for the patient could have justified not replacing it. Further questions include how the tube fell out (did the patient pull it out?) and whether, if the tube had not fallen out, its removal would have been justified?

To repeat, these decisions about providing or withdrawing artificial hydration and nutrition can be very difficult ones in relation to determining the right ethical path to take. Every case (and person) is different; assessments must be made on that basis and, importantly, in the light of all the relevant facts.

As I said, advocates of legalising euthanasia use cases such as the one describedin the ABC reportto promote their cause. They argue that withholding artificial hydration and nutritionis euthanasia often called slow euthanasia or passive euthanasia; therefore, we are already practising euthanasia and, if we are to be consistent, should recognise the legal right to do so by means of lethal injection.

Consequently, people who oppose the withdrawal of artificial hydration and nutrition when this withdrawal could be justified, and object to such a withdrawal on the grounds that it would be euthanasia, sadly help the pro-euthanasia cause.

Moreover, when members of the public think euthanasia isanyfailure to useallpossible means to prolong life and believe thatallrefusals of medical treatment that could prolong life are euthanasia, they respond positively to survey questions that ask, Do you agree with legalising euthanasia? because they want to have the right to refuse treatment. The publics responses are even more compromised when asked, If someone is in terrible pain and suffering should they be able to consent to euthanasia?

The option of saying yes to fully adequate pain and suffering management and no to euthanasia adopting a position that we must kill the pain and suffering, but not the personwiththe pain and suffering is often not possible in surveys. They tend to pose conjunctive questions (rather than two disjunctive ones)that is, do you agree with fully adequate pain and suffering managementandas a separate question, do you agree with euthanasia?.

It bears always keeping clearly in mind when discussing withdrawal of artificial hydration and nutrition that it can be employed unethically, when it does become a form of euthanasia that is, when its used with a primary intention to cause death.

This is most likely to occur when it is paired with an unwarranted use of palliative sedation, where the patient is unjustifiably deeply sedated until they die. Such a use is better called terminal sedation to differentiate it from the ethical use of palliative sedation, that is, when sedation is necessary and used appropriately to relieve a patients pain and suffering and not to hasten their death.

Margaret Somervilleis Professor of Bioethics in theSchool of Medicine and the Institute for Society and Ethics at the University of Notre Dame Australia.

This article was originally published at Mercatornet.com.

Related articles:

Sisters struggle reveals risk to disabled elderlyACSJC head backs aged care crackdown

Go here to see the original:

Margaret Somerville: Withdrawing artificial hydration and nutrition - The Catholic Weekly

Involve the kids in euthanasia, advises Canadian doctor – BioEdge

Bedside gatherings at a Canadian euthanasia are normally an adults-only affair. But one doctor suggests that young children would benefit from becoming involved.

In a blog entry at a University of British Columbia site, Dr Susan Woolhouse, who has been involved in some 70 assisted deaths, says My past experiences during my palliative care rotations reassured me that children could benefit from bearing witness to a loved ones death. Why would MAID be any different?

She gives some tips about how to explain the process of dying to young children:

Assuming that children are given honest, compassionate and non-judgmental information about MAID, there is no reason to think that witnessing a medically assisted death cannot be integrate as a normal part of the end of life journey for their loved one. If the adults surrounding them normalize MAID, so will the children.

These conversations can easily be had with children as young as 4, she says.

Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge

Follow this link:

Involve the kids in euthanasia, advises Canadian doctor - BioEdge

Trudeau moves to make Canada most permissive euthanasia regime in the world – Lifesite

OTTAWA, February 28, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) The Trudeau Liberal governments euthanasia bill tabled earlier this week will give Canada the most permissive euthanasia law in the world, its critics are unanimously warning.

Introduced February 24 by Justice Minister David Lametti, Bill C-7 is the Liberal response to the Quebec court decision last September striking down the requirement that a persons natural death be reasonably foreseeable to qualify for death by lethal injection.

But the federal bill expands euthanasia legal in Canada since June 2016 far beyond dispensing with the terminal illness criterion the Quebec Truchon-Gladu ruling declared unconstitutional.

Any way you look at it, its a minefield, said Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The language of the bill is just simply, absolutely confusing and ridiculous. If they do pass Bill C-7, we will become the most wide-open euthanasia regime in the world.

Schadenberg is joined by Campaign Life Coalition, Canadian Physicians for Life, Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia, Living With Dignity, and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, among others, in fiercely denouncing the bill.

Notably, Cardinal Thomas Collins of Toronto issued a strongly worded statement the day after the bill was tabled urging Canadians to oppose it.

This is a new chapter of death on demand, he wrote.

Canada has cast aside restrictions at a far quicker pace than any other jurisdiction in the world that has legalized euthanasia. (See Cardinal Collins full statement below.)

Bill C-7 will allow lethal injection of individuals who are no longer competent to consent, such as persons with dementia, if they have issued an advance directive asking to be euthanized at a future date, Schadenberg noted in an analysis of the legislation.

This amendment to the law contravenes the Carter decision which required that a person be capable of consenting to die, he said, referring to the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that struck down Canadas prohibition of euthanasia as unconstitutional.

The Trudeau government appears to be working closely with the euthanasia lobby which has the goal of amending the law to allow advanced consent for euthanasia, he observed.

Allowing euthanasia by prior consent can lead to such horrific scenarios as an elderly Dutch woman being lethally injected forcibly in 2016 as family members held her down.

In that case, the doctor was ultimately exonerated when a court ruled in September 2019 that not euthanizing the patient would have undermined the wishes she expressed four years earlier when first diagnosed with Alzheimers.

Bill C-7 specifies individuals must not be euthanized if they show they dont want to be by words, sounds or gestures, but states they can be killed if these signals are deemed involuntary.

The bill allows the medical practitioner who is killing the patient to be one of the two required witnesses which is an insane conflict of interest, noted Schadenberg.

Bill C-7 waives the current 10-day waiting period for individuals deemed terminally ill so they can be lethally injected the same day they request euthanasia.

It implements a 90-day waiting period for individuals seeking euthanasia for a non-terminal condition, creatng a two-tier law that Schadenberg predicts is open invitation for a Charter challenge.

A future court decision will likely strike down the 90-day waiting period for people who are not terminally ill because this provision represents an inequality within the law, he says.

As for the bills purported ban on euthanasia for mental illness, its a smokescreen, at best, to say that mental illness is not allowed because, in fact, it is, Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.

When Liberals legalized euthanasia four years ago, its Bill C-14 allowed euthanasia for persons at least 18 years of age who were capable of giving consent and who suffered from a grievous and irremediable medical condition.

The 2016 bill defined the latter as a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability resulting in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability and causing enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable (emphasis added).

Bill C-7 is explicit that for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), a mental illness is not considered to be an illness, disease or disability.

But this does not prevent euthanasia for psychological reasons, since the law specifically allows it, Schadenberg pointed out.

Moreover, with Bill C-7, the Liberals havent defined mental illness and they havent amended psychological suffering to exclude mental illness, he said.

Schadenberg argues that the Liberals should set aside Bill C-7 and concentrate on the planned June 2020 review of the current law.

David Cooke of Campaign Life Coalition also excoriated the bill as a how-to manual on killing Canadians in a detailed analysis here.

Among actions opposing the bill, Campaign Life has launched a petition to MPs against Bill C-7 here. The EPC has a petition to Justice Minister Lametti and Health Minister Patty Hadju asking the Liberals to nix the bill here.

The CCCB joined Cardinal Collins in asking Canadians to oppose the bill. To find who your MP is, go here.

***

Cardinal Collins full statement:

The federal government has introduced new legislation expanding the eligibility criteria for euthanasia. The inaccurate term, medical assistance in dying (MAiD), is currently used to describe what this law would allow, but this process is more accurately called euthanasia or assisted suicide. Pain medication and other resources and procedures can be used effectively to medically assist people who are dying, but that is not what MAiD means. It means giving a lethal injection to people who are not dying, so that they will die.

Those who oppose euthanasia expressed concern in 2016, when it was first legalized, that once the state legally provided death for some, it would only be a matter of time before the criteria for that would be expanded. This was dismissed as a slippery slope argument; we were told that safeguards would protect the most vulnerable. Now, less than four years later, we are far down the slope, and the criteria for euthanasia have been radically expanded.

There is no longer a requirement that the person receiving euthanasia be terminally ill. Under this legislation, any serious incurable illness, disease, or disability would render one eligible for euthanasia. Additionally, without any further study or direction from the courts, the new legislation would legalize euthanasia where consent is obtained by an advance directive. This is a new chapter of death on demand. Canada has cast aside restrictions at a far quicker pace than any other jurisdiction in the world that has legalized euthanasia.

As our legislators and country consider the legislation presented this week in Parliament, we should be mindful of the following:

In 2016, the government indicated that before any new legislation would be introduced, there would be a thorough five-year review of the impact of euthanasia in Canada no such review has taken place. Yet the government moves forward without such critical analysis, even though it is reported that since 2016 at least 13,000 people have died from lethal injection.

Where is the political will to push forward on palliative care for all Canadians? Only 30 per cent of Canadians have access to quality palliative care even though we know that pain and loneliness are among the biggest fears of those who are suffering. Palliative care can address these issues. If all Canadians had access to quality palliative care, fewer would seek lethal injection. Instead of developing an overall culture of care, we are rushing towards death on demand. The same doctors who are trying to care for their patients will now be called on to endorse euthanasia for them.

Under the proposed legislation, disabled Canadians with no terminal illness will now be eligible for lethal injection. People with disabilities already face substantial challenges relating to employment, housing, appropriate medical care and support. Their lives matter. They should never be seen as a burden to our society. We should be alarmed that those who have struggled for decades to be treated with equality may well be pressured, whether from family, friends or even their own health care professionals, to ease their burden and end their lives. These people need assisted living, not assisted death.

I invite all Canadians concerned about this legislation to contact their Member of Parliament to voice their concerns. We should also take time to be truly present to those who may feel that they are on the margins in our community. Those who feel that their life no longer has value must be assured by all of us that this is absolutely not the case there is dignity within each human life, not just when we are young, healthy and able, but even more so, when we are fragile and vulnerable.

It is up to every Canadian to foster a culture of care and love for one another. The answer is not assisted death in its many forms; it is accompanying our family, our friends and even strangers to assist them in life, recognizing the inherent dignity of every person.

Cardinal Thomas CollinsArchbishop of TorontoFebruary 25, 2020

Link:

Trudeau moves to make Canada most permissive euthanasia regime in the world - Lifesite

Comment Yesterdaze: An unexpected policy announcement The euthanasia debate took an unusual turn this week when – Newsroom

FEBRUARY 28, 2020 Updated February 28, 2020

Comment

The euthanasia debate took an unusual turn this week when Vision NZ, the political party associated with the Destiny Church, made an unexpected policy announcement. It appeared that Vision NZ supported voluntary euthanasia, but just for one person, co-host of TV3s The Project, Kanoa Lloyd.

The now former campaign manager of Vision NZ, Jevan Goulter, posted an ugly Facebook rant directed at Kanoa, including references to pigs and blood and a direction that she should show us what voluntary euthanasia looks like. This was in response to Kanoas objection to the rumoured inclusion of Vision NZs leader, Hannah Tamaki, as a contestant in the next series of Dancing With The Stars.

Apparently Goulter was triggered to assault his keyboard by herdescribing Hannah Tamakis xenophobic and homophobic views as properly dangerous. In fact, Goulter was so triggered he went straight for the pigs, blood and euthanasia without denying that Hannah Tamaki has xenophobic and homophobic views.

When Goulters social media rant went viral, drawing criticism from all quarters, Vision NZ acted quickly. Goulter was terminated, and given the context of euthanasia I should clarify that Im fairly confident it wasnt Devan himself, but rather his role as campaign manager for Vision NZ, that was terminated.

By the time it was all over, Jevan Goulter had lost his campaign manager role, Hannah Tamaki had lost the opportunity to show the nation what Kanoa Lloyd predicted would be a xenophobic cha cha and Brian Tamaki had lost his ability to punctuate a tweet properly.

Vision NZ and Hannah Tamaki made it very clear that it was unacceptable for Goulter to engage in such unhinged social media ranting, presumably because unhinged social media ranting is Brian Tamakis role. And its a role that (open air quotes) Bishop (close air quotes) Brian takes very seriously, as evidenced by his contribution to the issue in a since-deleted tweet decrying venomous, dirty liberal left, sexually confused, effeminate, booze drenched, antichrist, false wannabes, relationally messed up insecure people. According to Brian, the media and entertainment industries are full of them, which is patently untrue as to at least four of those characteristics.

By the time it was all over, Jevan Goulter had lost his campaign manager role, Hannah Tamaki had lost the opportunity to show the nation what Kanoa Lloyd predicted would be a xenophobic cha cha and Brian Tamaki had lost his ability to punctuate a tweet properly. All of which was entirely avoidable if only TV execs had done the logical thing and invited Hannah Tamaki to host her own TV show Donation, Donation, Donation.

If nothing else, the whole unsavoury episode was a reminder that Vision NZ is a political party that will be contesting this years election, provided it can find a new campaign manager who can spell, punctuate and cut out references to pigs blood.

And for a party that has 'Vision'in its title, its noteworthy that, this weeks debacle aside, Vision NZ is not particularly visible in the New Zealand political landscape. If Vision NZ does, as it claims, represent the silent majority, then its going about it in a fairly silent way.

Vision NZ says its objective is for Kiwis to have access to opportunity to succeed and prosper, which shouldnt be confused with Destiny Churchs objective, which is to have the opportunity to access Kiwis in order to succeed and prosper.

For starters, Vision NZ doesnt have a website. Visionnz.co.nz belongs to an AV company that is the largest Sky and aerial installation provider in Otago and Southland, and whose corporate values are listen and understand, make it easy and Im not making this up, its right there on the website guarantee happy endings. And now you know why Sky TV has marketed itself as your happy place.Youre welcome.

If you want to find out more about Vision NZ the political party, youll have to go its Facebook page.Im assuming you probably dont want to know more about Vision NZ the political party, particularly if you live in the Deep South and have just decided to get Sky TV installed, so Ive been to Vision NZs Facebook page for you. Vision NZ says its objective is for Kiwis to have access to opportunity to succeed and prosper, which shouldnt be confused with Destiny Churchs objective, which is to have the opportunity to access Kiwis in order to succeed and prosper.

If you dig a little deeper youll find that Vision NZ has announced a few policies and indeed this week wasnt the only time the party has referenced euthanasia.Last November, Hannah Tamaki did an interview at Magic Talk, which is a radio station and also a handy description of Brians sermons. In the interview, Hannah Tamaki said that Vision NZ wascommitted to get a mandate from voters in 2020 and follow it through, achieving what NZ First bark about every election, before rolling on their back with their legs in the air like they have just been euthanised.

I think shes confusing euthanasia with tummy tickling, but theres no confusion about the fact that Vision NZ is going to target disaffected NZ First voters. Im not sure thats a sound strategy given NZ First voters tend to be fairly disaffected to start with.

In other news this week, Jacinda Ardern was in Fiji, Winston Peters was in India and youre not going to win Lottos $50m jackpot tomorrow night.

Have a peaceful weekend.

See more here:

Comment Yesterdaze: An unexpected policy announcement The euthanasia debate took an unusual turn this week when - Newsroom

If you’re a fan, the Iditarod is coming. If you’re a racer, the Iditarod is here. – Anchorage Daily News

Sled dog fans have a few more days to wait until the official start of the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race. However, for Iditarod competitors, the race has already begun.

The food drops are done and gone. The majority of the teams have their ECG and bloodwork appointments completed. Some have done the prerace vet checks and the remainder will finish that step on Wednesday.

The race banquet and draw for the start order is Thursday. Nail-biting day is Friday. Saturday brings the ceremonial beginning of the Iditarod in downtown Anchorage. Come Sunday? The teams are on the trail.

For each team that leaves the starting line, the race is the culmination of at least seven months of intense training for both musher and dogs. Endless hours and considerable funding have been spent on readying 14 special animals for 1,000-mile trek.

Which dogs have made the cut? Races are won and lost by the fully-trained dog that is left at home.

There is the occasional dog that is cut from the team by ECG results or blood abnormalities that are only detectable by the Iditarods prerace checkup. Vet checks done by a private vet or by Iditarod veterinarians may also detect another issue. Normally, nothing serious is discovered, but once in awhile the vets may spot something the musher overlooked. Most teams, but not all, have talented extras who can jump into the team without a ripple.

Thursdays banquet and draw is something few mushers look forward to. It is a necessary encumbrance. The Iditarod, like every other sporting event, is entertainment that others participate in vicariously. Without funding from fans, the race could not survive.

There are some who wish to see the Iditarod and sled dog racing in general eliminated. Every Iditarod competitor hears from those who cry dog abuse! These folks are sadly misinformed.

PETA, aka People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, is the loudest of the dog racing detractors. In 2018, PETAs animal shelter in Norfolk, Virginia, euthanized 72% of the animals they took in. Thats 1,798 animals euthanized out of the 2,512 taken in. The numbers for the rest of Virginia shelters show a euthanasia rate of 12%, according to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. During the course of one season, the folks who cry that dogs are abused in the Iditarod destroy more dogs than will ever die in all the dog races combined over the next hundred years.

Animal-rights activists would have you turn all dogs into couch potatoes, which is the fate of many retired sled dogs. Sled dogs are born to run. Many older dogs, no longer able to stay with the team, pace restlessly, barking and whining with frustration as younger animals leave the yard without them.

The fact that dogs do best when they have a purpose is discounted by those who have only dealt with a single pet. Those of us who run dogs will never convince those who already have their minds made up, but occasionally we can have our say.

Meanwhile, Friday is not far away. This is supposed to be a day for racers to tie up loose ends. Some of that is already done, so mostly Friday is a day to say goodbyes and answer questions from friends and family. One year, I spent the day before the ceremonial start rebuilding my wifes sled, which was stomped by a moose while doing a last-minute exercise run on the Tozier Track in midtown Anchorage.

Saturdays ceremonial start is a valuable part of the Iditarod. It gives the public an opportunity to mingle with mushers in a fairly relaxed setting. The mushers can also work out some prerace butterflies. The 12-mile run from downtown Anchorage to Campbell Airstrip is a great shakedown cruise that carries no pressure.

Most drivers will actually be able to eat something that evening. Sunday morning the day of the real start in Willow will find many competitors skipping breakfast with uneasy stomachs.

But once the hook is pulled and the team exits Willow Lake, the butterflies are gone. The trail ahead is eagerly anticipated. The challenges are met with avidity. The teams of Alaskan huskies soon settle into a steady trot and surge forward with expectancy into the primeval wilderness ahead.

Read more:

If you're a fan, the Iditarod is coming. If you're a racer, the Iditarod is here. - Anchorage Daily News

The eugenics debate isn’t over but we should be wary of people who claim it can fix social problems – The Conversation UK

Andrew Sabisky, a UK government adviser, recently resigned over comments supporting eugenics. Around the same time, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins best known for his book The Selfish Gene provoked controversy when tweeting that, while eugenics is morally deplorable, it would work.

Eugenics can be described as the science and practice of improving the human race through the selection of good hereditary traits. Eugenics inevitably brings to mind the atrocities committed by the Nazis, who used eugenic ideology as the rationale for large-scale forced sterilisation, involuntary euthanasia and the Holocaust. Given this sinister history, its bound to be alarming when government officials endorse eugenic ideas.

The eugenics movement of the past has been thoroughly discredited on both moral and scientific grounds. But questions about the ethics of genetically improving humans remain relevant.

The emergence of new genetic technologies often prompts renewed debate. Can eugenic ideas about improving the human race be divorced from the evils of the past and pursued through benign means? Or is there something inherently morally problematic about the idea of genetically improving humans?

A new, morally responsible eugenics may well be defensible, and new genetic technologies must be assessed on their own terms. But we also need to consider the broader political context. If the betterment of individual traits were to be presented as a key strategy to improve human welfare, this would look very much like the individualisation of social problems that was such a central feature of the old eugenics.

The father of the eugenics movement was the English explorer and scientist Francis Galton (1822-1911). Influenced by his cousin Charles Darwins work The Origin of Species, Galton was interested in ideas about the heritability of different traits. He was particularly interested in the heritability of intelligence and how to increase societys diminished stock of talent and character. He also believed that social problems such as poverty, vagrancy and crime were ultimately caused by the inheritance of degenerate traits from parent to child.

Galton embarked on an ambitious research programme with the explicit goal to improve human stock through selective human breeding. In 1883 he named this research programme eugenics, meaning good in birth.

Galtons ideas quickly became influential and were widely embraced, first in Britain but subsequently in many other countries, including the US, Germany, Brazil and Scandinavia. At a time coloured by widespread concerns about the state of the nation, lack of social progress and the degeneration of the population, Galtons ideas inspired a popular movement for social reform through selective human reproduction.

The first half of the 20th century saw the enactment of a variety of eugenic policies. Positive eugenics focused on encouraging those of good stock to reproduce, such as through the fitter family contests put on across the US. Negative eugenics involved discouraging or preventing reproduction among those deemed unfit, such as the poor, criminals or the feeble-minded, predominantly by coercive means.

Eugenics is often equated with Nazi atrocities, but many other brutal acts were committed in its name, usually targeting disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, such as the poor, disabled and ill. As part of the negative eugenic effort, forced sterilisation was conducted on a large scale, not only in Nazi Germany but also in the Scandinavian countries (in Sweden, this practice continued until the 1970s) and in the US (where it was revealed that involuntary sterilisation of female prisoners occurred as late as 2010). The US combined eugenic ideology with ideas about racial hierarchy and applied eugenic thinking to immigration. This led to the passing of the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act in order to curb the entry of inferior ethnic groups.

After the second world war and the exposure of the Nazi regimes atrocities, eugenics fell out of favour. But worries about eugenics often resurface with the introduction of new genetic technologies that allow us to improve humans in some way, most notably gene editing, such as CRISPR-Cas9, and reproductive technologies, such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Reproductive technologies mainly help prospective parents to have children free from genetically based disabilities and disorders, but as our knowledge of the human genome advances, the range of traits we may be able to select away or select for will probably increase, prompting fears of designer babies.

Such technologies are sometimes labelled eugenic by sceptics as a means to discredit them. Arguments then ensue about whether these technologies represent a form of old eugenics and are therefore unethical, or whether they represent a new, benign form of eugenics. Questions about the ethics of genetic technologies and the new eugenics are far from settled.

But even if our ethical analysis should deem such new genetic technologies permissible, it would be disingenuous to present these technological advances as solutions to complex problems such as poverty, unemployment, or poor physical or mental health. We should be wary of biological determinist narratives that blame various forms of disadvantage on individual traits, without acknowledging the importance of social and political factors. This kind of thinking is very much in line with the old eugenics.

We are right to be worried when government officials endorse eugenic ideas. It is reassuring that Sabiskys comments provoked such outrage and that he was forced to resign. But in some respects, in the current age of austerity policies, the individualisation of social problems is an all too familiar theme.

Read the original here:

The eugenics debate isn't over but we should be wary of people who claim it can fix social problems - The Conversation UK

Provincial govt to withhold $1.5M from Canadian hospice for refusing to kill sick patients – Lifesite

LADNER, British Columbia, February 28, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) British Columbias NDP government is pulling $1.5 million in public funding from a palliative care hospice and threatening to seize the facility because it refuses to allow doctors to kill sick patients by lethal injection onsite through medically-assisted death, or euthanasia.

Health Minister Adrian Dix said in a press conference Tuesday hes instructed Fraser Health Authority to stop funding the Delta Hospice Society by February 2021.

That allows for the required 365-days notice to end the service agreement between Fraser Health and the non-profit society without cause, and thus avoid the dispute ending up in court, he said, as reported in the Vancouver Sun.

Dix also said that at the end of the year the government may seize the 10-bed Irene Thomas Hospice in Ladner that is now run by the Delta Hospice Society.

We may take over the existing site, which is on Fraser Health Authority land and rented for $1 a year to the society, said Dix, according to the Sun.

We may find another site. These beds will not move out of Delta.

But the government seizing the hospice building would be a scandalous appropriation of private assets, fired back Delta Hospice Society board chair Angelina Ireland.

The society built the Irene Thomas Hospice without taxpayer funds, at the cost of approximately $9,000,000, she said in a press release.

Moreover, it has operated the hospice for 10 years, providing more than 700,000 hours of volunteer labour and $30 million to the public health care system, she added.

You know, we havent been a bad partner. But for some reason, were being treated with absolute disdain, Ireland told LifeSiteNews.

Dixs decision is the latest blow to the society in a bitter long-running battle over its refusal to allow patients to be lethally injected onsite in the wake of Canadas legalization of euthanasia, or Medical assistance in dying, (MAiD), in June 2016.

The hospice society is arguing that allowing euthanasia violates its constitution, which promises not to hasten a patients death, and that palliative care and euthanasia are not compatible.

Both the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association (CHPCA) and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP) are backing the society.

But Dix claimed Tuesday that the hospice is violating federal law and B.C. government policy that non-denominational health care institutions that receive more than half their funding from the province must provide euthanasia, the Vancouver Sun reported.

However, the minister and the health authority have completely ignored the societys January offer to forego $750,000 in public funding in order to fall below the benchmark of 50 percent of public funding for its beds, which are now funded 94 percent by the government, Ireland said.

Indeed, Dix was dismissive when the Delta Optimist asked him if hed considered Irelands proposal.

Its not her deal to cut, he said.

Ireland said she only heard Dixs decision when the media started calling her.

She responded in a press release the next day that the society is shocked and outraged this week by the Fraser Health Authoritys blatant move to cut off all discussions.

The hospice is willing to transfer patients out for euthanasia, which is readily available in the lower mainland, while palliative care beds are becoming scarce, she told Canadian Press.

Three people at the hospice in the last three years requested euthanasia, Ireland said.

"All I can say is they were transferred out to their preferred location two went home and one went next door to the Delta Hospital, one minute away," she said.

All this makes Dixs decision not only baffling, but clearly agenda-driven, Ireland said.

He is imposing his view by fiat on B.C. taxpayers, 90 percent of whom want access to palliative care, and only two percent of whom want access to euthanasia, she told LifeSiteNews.

Euthanasia is a separate public health care stream, distinct and apart from palliative care, she stressed.

If the government wants to open MAiD facilities thats their option, but they must not be allowed to download it onto the backs of private palliative care facilities, added Ireland.

And its all about dollars. It is easier and cheaper for the government to provide euthanasia rather than continue with palliative care. Basically, they are saying that no palliative care facility in B.C. has a right to exist unless it also provides euthanasia.

The hospice received support from Delta South Liberal MLA Ian Paton, who criticized the NDP for being heavy-handed, reported the CBC.

What I see is government literally stealing assets of the people of Delta that worked so hard for so many years to raise $8.5 million for this facility, said Paton, who did not say where he stood on euthanasia.

Ireland, who was elected chair in a turbulent meeting in December during which the new board reversed the former boards week-old decision to allow euthanasia at the hospice, told LifeSite she is looking at legal and other options.

Dix pulling $1.5 million would be essentially closing down the society, because thats not the kind of budget you could possibly fundraise, she said.

However, the battle is far from over, added Ireland, who began volunteering with the society after using its programs when diagnosed with cancer several years ago.

I'm a cancer survivor. Ive fought the war, she told LifeSiteNews.

And Im not afraid of Minister Dix because Ive already been against the biggest threat that I could have faced in my lifetime I will be there to challenge him every step of the way.

A noon rally on April 4 at the Victoria legislature to support the hospice will feature Margaret Cottle, Dr. Will Johnston, MP Tamara Jansen and Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition as speakers.

Contact information:

Adrian Dix, BC Minister of HealthRoom 337 Parliament BuildingsVictoria, BC V8V 1X4Email: [emailprotected]Phone: (250) 953-3547

Ian Paton, MLA[emailprotected]Phone: (604) 940-7930

Contact BC MLAs here.

Sign the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition petition to Minister Dix and Fraser Health Authority CEO Dr. Victoria Lee here.

Go here to see the original:

Provincial govt to withhold $1.5M from Canadian hospice for refusing to kill sick patients - Lifesite

Two dogs who are best friends for life will soon need a home in Spokane – KREM.com

SPOKANE, Wash. If one thing is clear from the relationship between Bear and Bones, its that dogs have best friends, too.

The dogs were surrendered to an animal shelter in central Texas by their owner to find a new home.

Now, Bear and Bones are waiting for a new fur-ever home at the Spokane Humane Society.

The dogs were surrendered to a kill shelter, meaning they would be euthanized if they were not adopted. Nonprofit Hot-Paws pays to transport the dogs on euthanasia lists to partner shelters like the Spokane Humane Society.

On Saturday, a Hot-Paws transport of 30 dogs stopped for a bathroom break in Layton, Utah. During the stop, Bear broke free from a handler and was later hit by a car.

The Spokane Humane Society said Layton police and citizens rushed him into the clinic while the transport staff were searching for him. Staff later found out that Bear had a small bleed in his abdomen, a pin-sized hole in his lung and two teeth that were broken off.

Bear also suffered severe road rash but no broken bones. He was kept in the ICU for at least two days, the Humane Society said.

RELATED: Spokane Humane Society finds home for Dutch the dog

Transport staff later brought Bones to Bear while he was still unresponsive in the clinic. They said Bones began to cry and whine for Bear.

Bear heard Bones and slowly started to wake up.

It was obvious to everyone that they were best friends and so happy to be reunited, the Humane Society said, adding that the dogs made the remainder of their trip to Spokane together.

The Humane Society said everyone knew Bear and Bones sleep right next to each other at the Humane Society, with Bones sometimes resting his head on Bear.

As soon as Bear is healed, they will be moved to the adoption center as a bonded pair and will need a good home together.

A fundraiser for Bear's treatment has raised nearly $500 out of a $3,500 goal at last check.

The Humane Society accepts approximately 70 dogs a month from kill shelters in the southern United States from about five different transport agencies. The shelter accepted 886 dogs in 2019 alone.

RELATED: Man's best friend may also be an actual lifesaver, study suggests

Read more:

Two dogs who are best friends for life will soon need a home in Spokane - KREM.com

Why legal euthanasia results in sick, elderly being pressured to die – Lifesite

February 3, 2020 (El Debate de Hoy) Jeanne Delpierre requested euthanasia. She did not have advanced cancer, nor any other serious and incurable disease, a requirement required by Belgian law. Her incurable disease was old age (88 years) and the multiple pathologies associated with it: osteoarthritis, loss of sight and hearing

Jeanne Delpierre was killed.

In Holland, Senator Brongersma was killed in a case that received significant media coverage in 1998 because he had been one of the first to request euthanasia for psychological suffering. In his case, it was loneliness: No one is left alive that interests me.

In Benelux (Belgium/Netherlands/Luxembrug), a beacon of euthanasic progress, there are more and more people who ask for and obtain death to avoid simple emotional disorders, or to prevent future suffering (for example, people who are diagnosed with cancer or Alzheimers disease but are still in the early stages).

In our aging societies, the number of elderly people facing physical and mental decline, depression, and loneliness will grow rapidly: the generation that started during the family-sexual revolution in the 60s is reaching old age, with its sequelae of divorces and low birth rates. Many Baby-Boomers have had no children, or have had very few: a very sad old age awaits them in hospices or empty homes. The burden they represent to the economic and health care systems is grave, indeed.

Lets say it bluntly: there is a definite risk, more or less subtle, that more and more of the elderly will be pushed toward euthanasia. It will be enough to convince them that the final stretch of life, with all of its difficulties, is lebensunwert, unworthy of being lived (yes, it is the term that Nazi legislation used to justify the extermination of the deficient in the Aktion T4 program). They will also be pressured with the idea that they are a drag on young people. When the notion that the dignified choice is not to impose ones own decay on others is incorporated into the cultural environment, the burden of proof will fall on the one who wishes to continue living beyond a certain age.

Our progressive government is willing to embark society on this formidable advance. Of course, it will say euthanasia is going to be allowed only in extreme cases of incurable and unbearable suffering... This is what the government has already done with abortion. Experience shows that, once the principle of inviolability of life is demolished, public opinion and jurisprudential drift lead to an increasingly lax interpretation of legal requirements. Inevitably, it leads to a reform of the law, to accommodate the permissive praxis that is a fait accompli. The slippery slope is confirmed time and again in bioethical matters.

The Netherlands has already served as a laboratory for euthanasia for 40 years (tolerated by the courts since the 70s and regulated since 2001), and Belgium for 20 years (regulated in 2002). The evolution in both countries is the one synthesized by Herbert Hendin in Seduced by Death: From euthanizing terminally ill patients they have progressed to euthanizing those with chronic illnesses; from accepting euthanasia for physical illnesses they have evolved to euthanizing people with psychological illnesses; from allowing euthanasia only for voluntary cases, it is now accepted practice to euthanize people without their express permission. Therefore, the number of cases shoots upward like an arrow: in Belgium, from about 200 annually at the beginning to about 2,500 today. In the Netherlands, it has been estimated that 15% of deaths are already caused by euthanasia. The control is ex post facto: doctors must inform the Control Commission...when the patient has already been passported. In addition, the commission consists mostly of supporters of euthanasia.

The alternative to euthanasia is not horrible agony. We live in a time when almost all sufferings can be attenuated by legitimate medicine. Supporters of euthanasia try to muddle everything, confusing it with palliative care within the blurry concept of a dignified death. But palliative care seeks not to cause death, but to improve the quality of life in the final phase of a painful disease. Nor should terminal sedation be confused with euthanasia: it seeks not to cause death, but to lessen the agony of death.

But palliative care is very expensive. In Spain, which is a pioneer in this field, investment in palliative care has been frozen for decades. Although the Bologna Plan provided for European universities to develop palliative care as another specialty of medical studies, only 6 of 43 Spanish medical schools teach it on a mandatory basis. There is a national palliative care strategy that has clearly been given up for dead since the commission has not met for three years, and the national plan has not been created. In Spain alone, some 75,000 patients are in need of palliative care and cannot receive it.

The culture of death, with its 100,000 abortions a year and the substitution of family stability for a libertine lifestyle, has led us to senile societies, with an inverted demographic pyramid. Every aging society must decide whether to invest in palliative care and health care for the elderly or euthanasia. Our socialist-communist government seems to have decided that the progressive way is the second. In the Happy World of Aldous Huxley, there is no old age.

Editors note: Francisco Jos Contreras is a lecturer in legal philosophy at the University of Seville and is a representative in the Spanish congress from the conservative VOX party.

This article was first published at El debate de hoy. It is republished here by permission.

Go here to read the rest:

Why legal euthanasia results in sick, elderly being pressured to die - Lifesite

Why Asheville animal lovers are outraged over Brother Wolf’s euthanasia rate | OPINION – Citizen Times

Joelle Warren, GUEST COLUMNIST Published 6:00 a.m. ET Jan. 31, 2020 | Updated 9:37 p.m. ET Jan. 31, 2020

Need more cuteness in your life? Brother Wolf Animal Rescue is seeking foster support for kittens in the Asheville area.

Dogs and cats are being euthanized at Brother Wolf at an alarming rate and the community is outraged. The new leadership is using terms like warehousing and aggression as a fear tactic in an attempt to justify their actions in the public eye. Animal rescue professionals, like myself, have heard these excuses before.

The term warehousing was first noted in the late 90's when a couple of 'rescues' were busted with hundreds of dogs living in filth, stacked upon one another, with neither physical nor behavioral needs met. That realization became the fuel to reform animal sheltering. California even passed law during this time period, deeming it illegal for any shelter to euthanize a pet that had a rescue group willing to save them. Leaders in the movement created the path for transparency and accountability. Dogs and cats housed in shelter and rescue facilities were to be given the fivefreedoms:

Freedom from hunger and thirst; Freedom from discomfort; Freedom from pain, injury or disease ; Freedom to express normal behavior; Freedom from fear and distress.

BWAR was created with these concepts in mind.

Background: We know change at Brother Wolf Animal Rescue is hard. Here's why it's necessary

In 2008 in Hendersonville, a group called All Creatures Great and Small, was busted for warehousing pets. Animals were being co-housed with little to no medical care, fighting, breeding, and some even died. It was sad and disgusting. Many area rescue groups, including BWAR, pulled animals from this facility when it was shut down by the state and helped several animals escape the horror.

I do not believe animals at Brother Wolf are being warehoused. Warehousing pets is when you have given up on providing enrichment for them. It is not simply determined by length of stay. Warehousing is when you have given up hope. Its a term to hide behind when youve run out of creative solutions to save pets and you no longer possess the experience or resources to advocate for them.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

During my eight years as the Director of Operations at BWAR, animals were given every chance at life. We had a behaviorist on staff, sometimes more than one, that trained a team of dedicated volunteers. We provided the most at-risk dogs with their own enrichment team. These volunteers trained, walked, hiked, played with and took the dogs on appropriate outings. This is how we kept the dogs from experiencing kennel stress or going kennel crazy." We also had highly trained adoption counselors that knew what to look for in potential adopters.

They counseled them on ways to set up their newly adopted pets for success and discussed management strategies to overcome behavior challenges. We also provided post-adoption behavioral support from our behaviorists for dogs with various issues, including bite histories. In my time at BWAR, there was not a single time that any liability issues arose regarding the marginal dogs that were adopted.

I will acknowledge that this strategic programming did not completely eliminate the fact that some animals could not be rehabilitated. Some dogs could not handle shelter life, and didnt have rescue or sanctuary opportunities. Some had aggressive tendencies that made them unsafe to be handled by staff or other experienced people.I had to make this decision only three times in eight years.Seventeen dogs have been killed at Brother Wolf in less than a year.

Opinion: This is why Brother Wolf made a tough decision for 2 Asheville dogs

More: Brother Wolf signals mission change, shift away from animals with history of aggression

You must remember, BWAR is a limited intake, private facility, built and supported by our community. With this comes the luxury of time and space. The animals entering their care were promised every chance at a live outcome. I do not feel that the 90% No Kill statistic applies to limited intake facilities. They have the ability to select which animals enter their system and choosing to euthanize healthy dogs for manageable behavior issues is like scoffing at the 1,979 open intake, no-kill municipal shelters which have fought tooth and nail to save over 90% of the lives entering their system.

Katarina Brown, right, poses with Zurich.(Photo: Courtesy photo)

In January alone, eight Brother Wolf dogs have been killed. For weeks prior to these recent deaths, the animal rescue community rallied together to see if we could save some of the dogs that were in danger. I asked to take Zurich, who had an adopter, a former staff member, whom Zurich loved. I asked for my rescue, Mountain Pet Rescue Asheville, to assume full liability of Zurich. I offered to hire a behaviorist to work with the adopter and said I would be her mentor, helping with any back up care needed. I was refused. I pled to personally adopt him and work him in with my pack, two of which are BWAR dogs with similar behavior issues. Again, no. We asked for the evaluations from the alleged multiple certified behaviorists, who supposedly deemed these dogs un-adoptable and were never provided this information. Another dog, Piper, had a previous employee of the BWAR behavior team that wanted to adopt her, but her plea was declined.

This is not conscious sheltering. This is unnecessary killing. This is turning your back on the community that built and supported you. People understand the need for behavioral euthanasia when there are no other options. Adopting out dangerous dogs into the public is not a tenet of no-kill, and that is not what we are asking for. We want answers. We want a chance. And we keep getting denied and ignored as animals are being killed. This dismissive behavior, is why the community is so upset.

Joelle Warren(Photo: Courtesy Photo)

The main tenets of the no-kill philosophy are transparency, open dialogue, honest and genuine communication, with consideration given to partnering rescues and those with experience.

Terms can be discussed, expectations addressed, along with follow-up and support. Additionally, foster and volunteer programs, pet retention resources, and spay/neuter education is what is needed to explore every option for a viable, live outcome. This is how responsible animal rescue is done.

Joelle Warren co-founded Brother Wold Animal Rescueand is a native of Asheville.Warren left the organizationin 2015 andwenton to co-found Mountain Pet Rescue Asheville.

Read or Share this story: https://www.citizen-times.com/story/opinion/2020/01/31/brother-wolf-animal-rescue-euthanasia-rate-no-kill-nc-shelter/4615085002/

Continued here:

Why Asheville animal lovers are outraged over Brother Wolf's euthanasia rate | OPINION - Citizen Times

Belgium Acquits Three Doctors in Landmark Euthanasia Case – The New York Times

A Belgian court on Friday acquitted three doctors who had been charged with manslaughter by poisoning, in a landmark case that for the first time charged health professionals criminally under Belgiums euthanasia law.

Euthanasia has been legal in Belgium since 2002. It also is legal in the Netherlands and Luxembourg, but has long been debated in European countries. While certain forms of assisted suicide are practiced in France and Switzerland, the Belgian law goes further.

Belgium allows euthanasia if an individual who is incurably ill and encounters unbearable physical or psychological pain, makes a voluntary, well-considered and repeated request, without external pressure. Since 2014, minors can also request euthanasia under certain conditions.

The three doctors were facing life-imprisonment sentences over accusations that they had unlawfully poisoned a 38-year-old woman in 2010.

The woman, Tine Nys, requested euthanasia under the law in 2009, according to Joris Van Cauter, the lawyer for Sophie Nys, one of her two sisters, who said Tine Nys had suffered from depression and heroin addiction and had tried to commit suicide several times. A few months later, the lawyer said, she was diagnosed with autism by a psychiatrist.

She received a lethal injection on April 27, 2010, in the company of her parents and her two sisters.

But Sophie Nys later argued that Tine Nys had not received sufficient advice, and that doctors had not tried to treat her mental illness. She filed a complaint, saying Tine Nys had not been incurably ill, as the Belgian euthanasia law requires.

A minority of euthanasia requests are granted in Belgium when the patient has psychological issues. Sophie Nyss complaint was initially rejected by a court but later permitted on appeal.

It makes you wonder about medicine and how you make life or death decisions, the lawyer, Mr. Van Cauter, said about the three doctors who were standing trial. My client asked, How can you say that you tried to treat her?

Mr. Van Cauter added that his client and her family had not wanted the doctors to go to prison; instead, they wanted an official acknowledgment that euthanasia should not have been administered under the circumstances.

Its a bit disappointing, the lawyer said of the decision, adding that the way Tine Nys was treated was very sad.

After a two-week trial and eight hours of final debate, a 12-person jury in the criminal court of Ghent, in northwestern Belgium, cleared the three practitioners the doctor who made the lethal injection, the general practitioner and a psychiatrist.

Walter Van Steenbrugge, the lawyer of one of the doctors, Joris Van Hove, said a conviction would have established a dangerous precedent for professionals practicing euthanasia. He said he and his peers had received dozens of letters from worried doctors who said they had halted euthanasia procedures for fear of legal consequences.

My client is very relieved, Mr. Van Steenbrugge said. There was a lot at stake, not only for Belgium but for Europe in general.

More than 2,350 people were permitted euthanasia in Belgium in 2018, according to the latest public figures.

In the Netherlands, a doctor was acquitted in September after having been accused of failing to secure proper consent from a 74-year-old patient who suffered from Alzheimers and had been administered euthanasia by the doctor.

In France, a 42-year-old nurse who had been in a vegetative state for more than a decade died in July, after doctors had stopped feeding him artificially, following years of legal battles.

The case that received the most attention in recent years in Belgium was 40-year-old Paralympian champion Marieke Vervoort, who was suffering from an incurable degenerative muscle disease, and who died last October, 11 years after having signed the papers paving the way to her death.

In Tine Nyss case, Mr. Van Steenbrugge said the acquittal had sent a strong, reassuring message to doctors. It was not manslaughter, it wasnt a crime, he said. It was euthanasia.

Follow this link:

Belgium Acquits Three Doctors in Landmark Euthanasia Case - The New York Times

Vet Shares What Pets Experience When Facing the End of Life Alone – Our Community Now at Maryland

Photo by Catherine Heath on Unsplash

When it comes to facing the end of life for a furry friend, most people will report that it's a heartbreaking process. For some pet owners,it's one of those deeply impactful experiences that stay with them forever, just as the grief of losing a human family member will. Butthe grief of owners is just one part of the picture. What's often not talked about is what our four-legged family member experiences in their last moments.

Holding an aged, sick, and dying pet in your arms, watching the vet approach with the needles, calming them as they express their fear and pain, and ushering them into peaceful rest while tears flow freely, this is the experience many pet parents know. This is not the experience all pets have, however. Some are left to face those final moments in a vet's office, with people they do not know.

In a blog post shared by Hillcrest Veterinary Hospital & 24-hour Emergency Service in South Africa, a local vet shared the heart-wrenching loneliness of pets who face euthanasia without the loving arms, faces, scents, and voices of their two-legged family nearby. The post has been shared over 130,000 times and explains that oftentimes when making the transition from life into death, pets will search for their ownerssometimes, frantically, as they near the end of life.The veterinarian explains that they search every face inthe room for their lovedone, not understanding why they have been left behind.

As the post says, these animals need the comfort of their owners, just as we seek the comfort of our loved ones.Though losing a pet may be hardand watching as they become still and pass on is scary, sobering, and full of sadnessthey, too, need comfort, especially in those last few moments.

The American Animal Hospital Association(AAHA) has some tips and guidance for pet owners facing the death of a pet. Euthanasia can be a final act of love and often is the only way to end a pets suffering. Humane euthanasia is a peaceful process and can help pet owners with grief, as they help and watch their pet stop suffering.

Veterinarian Jennifer Coates of Pet MD weighed in about whether or not pets know they're going to die. While her article was not able to answer that specific question, it did point out that helping them through those final moments with love and grace is the ultimate act of love.

Well probably never be able to definitively answer the question of whether pets know when they are going to die. What is vital, however, is that owners and veterinarians recognize when the end is near so that we can provide all the love and care necessary to make their last days as good as they possibly can be.

When a pet dies, we often wonder what we could have done to give them a better life, and as the vet who wrote this post reminds us, simply being with them to the very end means more than any new toy, bone, or chew. When that unfortunate time comes, they will look to us for the final okay to go. Most areas have veterinarians who will come to the home to perform the procedure, allowing the pet to be in their own space and not anxiously being placed on a table or vet office floor.

This one pulled on the heartstrings and reminded us of all the fur babies we have loved and lost. We want to hear from you on this subject. How have you faced the inevitable situation of when a pet is ready to pass on? Let us know in the comments, and share any pictures of your beloved pets with us.

See the original post here:

Vet Shares What Pets Experience When Facing the End of Life Alone - Our Community Now at Maryland

In this nation, 10000 folks have sought euthanasia from the federal government, the stunning reality revealed in analysis – Sahiwal Tv

Who doesnt wish to reside and lengthy life. If the folks affected by critical sickness are ignored, then normally everybody desires that they reside life to the fullest. But theres a nation on the planet the place persons are asking for a want of dying from the federal government. The identify of this nation is Netherlands.

Here in Parliament just lately, the nation's Health Minister and Dutch MP Christian Democrat Hugo Di Jong quoted a report that 10 thousand folks of the nation have expressed their want to the federal government that they wish to finish their lives.

->All these folks needs to be allowed this. All these persons are greater than 55 years of age. All these persons are affected by their critical diseases. So I wish to finish my life. The Health Minister mentioned that this determine is 0.18 p.c of the whole inhabitants of the nation.

Actually, all these persons are affected by critical ailments and wish to finish their lives on their very own. Health Minister Di Jong has expressed concern on this problem. He has to say that theres a critical matter. The authorities ought to assume those that are searching for euthanasia. Why has he develop into upset along with his life. These folks ought to assist to search out the suitable that means of life and encourage them once more. The authorities must take a call on this. Also, you must assist such folks, whove given up hope of residing. Another Member of Parliament of the Netherlands mentioned that she is going to introduce a invoice for euthanasia for greater than 75 folks, so that individuals can finish their lives in a peaceable and dignified approach. How a lot have you ever misplaced? That is why you will need to go for a snowflake.

Link:

In this nation, 10000 folks have sought euthanasia from the federal government, the stunning reality revealed in analysis - Sahiwal Tv

The pro-life position on Tinslee Lewis is to take her off life support and end her suffering – NBC News

As a newcomer to pro-life activism in 1975, I was captivated along with the nation by the case of Karen Ann Quinlan. Quinlan had been hospitalized after suffering an event that deprived her of oxygen for a prolonged period and led doctors to diagnose her as being in a persistent vegetative state. She was placed on a respirator and provided with a feeding tube, but her parents wanted the respirator removed because they felt it was "extraordinary care" keeping her alive artificially rather than allowing her to live or die "in God's time." The hospital refused, however, because, it said, that would violate New Jersey's homicide law. Her landmark legal case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which found in the Quinlans' favor.

Unfortunately, some in our movement have shifted from simply protecting ordinary care to pushing to establish extraordinary care as the new standard.

The decision was important for me and others in the pro-life community for confirming the standard of ordinary versus extraordinary care. Our position has always been to protect the maintenance of ordinary care deemed to be food, water and oxygen but not extraordinary care; it was never the movement's position that there was a right to such treatment but rather that doctors should not hasten death.

Forty-five years later, it's important to remember this foundational pro-life principle. Unfortunately, some in our movement have shifted from simply protecting ordinary care to pushing to establish extraordinary care as the new standard. They want unlimited care interventions even when futile, inappropriate or outright harmful and in violation of doctors' consciences and their oath to do no harm.

Get the think newsletter.

Tragically, they are pushing for this treatment in the case of Tinslee Lewis, a 1-year-old born in my home state of Texas with a severe heart defect. Her doctors say she is suffering with no hope of improvement and should be taken off life support, but the family and some right-to-life advocates have appealed to the courts to block the decision. An important hearing in her case is being held Tuesday.

This new position is especially troubling, because conscience is a central ethic of medicine, and to strip doctors of their right to conscience would enslave them to the whims of the state, society and patient surrogates. In fact, conscience protections were some of our first pro-life victories. Laws enacted in the 1970s protected medical providers who refused to participate in abortions or sterilizations. In 1996, we further protected medical students who didn't wish to train to perform abortions. Many state protections have been sought and won since.

The recent March for Life at the end of January, the pro-life community's largest annual national rally, for the first time featured the current U.S. president as a speaker. This should be a time for unity and reaffirmation of the central tenets of the movement. Instead, we face a division that not only splinters our advocacy, but also has terrible real-world consequences for those enduring fates similar to those of Quinlan and Tinslee.

Trinity Lewis, Tinslee's mom, has expressed hope through her attorneys and advisers at Texas Right to Life that her daughter can transition home for palliative care, and she has sued to demand that the hospital keep her daughter on her ventilator and resuscitate her multiple times a day indefinitely. The alternative is a transfer to another facility, but no facility has been willing to take her. Sworn testimony from doctors and nurses who have cared for Tinslee her entire life suggests Lewis is being misled that her daughter has any hope for a better outcome.

As a mother myself, I can only imagine Lewis' pain, and I understand deeply why she holds out such hope. Which is why it's so crucial that the medical establishment be respected for its expertise and guidance and that the laws put in place to make the best decision for patients in these circumstances be followed. Unfortunately, what we have seen in the media from attorneys, family and advisers for Tinslee constitutes a distortion of the patient's condition, the law at the heart of the lawsuit and the historic pro-life positions regarding euthanasia and end-of-life care. In fact, several other key organizations, including Texas Alliance for Life and the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, support the position of my group, Texans for Life.

Tinslee, who has a nurse dedicated solely to her care 24/7, struggles to survive any agitation, including diaper changes, leading to "dying events" on a daily basis. The medicines help control her breathing and her pain, but they keep her in deep sedation and a state of paralysis to minimize those dying events. No one can reasonably argue that the care Tinslee receives is ordinary.

To deal with heart-wrenching scenarios such as these, the state has a carefully constructed law respectful of pro-life concerns about end-of-life treatments and interventions, which balances the need to protect life, patient dignity and the conscience rights of providers. The law, the Texas Advance Directives Act, allows doctors and hospitals to give families like the Lewises a deadline to seek treatment elsewhere when they no longer believe interventions are appropriate. It was signed by a Republican governor in consultation with a large number of pro-life organizations.

But Tinslee's advocates complain that the law is unconstitutional because it deprives patients of due process before they are deprived of their right to life, as the 10 days the law allows to find an alternative facility is not enough time to complete a transfer. In fact, Tinslee's hospital has been looking for alternative facilities for months. According to the doctors we've consulted with on this case, a typical hospital transfer takes only three to four days.

The mounting health care costs that would result from mandating extraordinary care, regardless of the futility, risks a renewed push and acceptance of euthanasia.

Worse yet, the pro-life group that's helping to bring this legal challenge is trying to change the concept of what constitutes euthanasia. The idea that anything less than a full-court press until every cell is dead somehow constitutes euthanasia is new and dangerous. The mounting health care costs that would result from mandating extraordinary care, regardless of the futility, risks a renewed push and acceptance of euthanasia, as we have seen in other countries.

More than rhetoric or distortions, the law or a movement, this case is about Tinslee, her family and the caregivers who have worked so hard to save her life. But if the court tramples on the carefully constructed legal mechanisms to safeguard her best interests and empowers groups like Texas Right to Life to redefine euthanasia and diminish doctors' conscience rights, we will all be damaged.

Kyleen Wright is the president of Texans for Life. Follow her on Twitter @kyleenwright or @prolifetexans.

See the rest here:

The pro-life position on Tinslee Lewis is to take her off life support and end her suffering - NBC News

Catholic bishops urge Trudeau to scrap changes to assisted dying legislation – National Post

OTTAWA The president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has written to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to voice very serious concern about proposed changes to medical assistance in dying legislation.

Archbishop Richard Gagnon says in a letter on Friday the governments attempt to expand assisted death to include advance directives, as well as extending it to situations where death is not reasonably foreseeable, is deeply troubling.

Trudeaus government is working to comply with a Superior Court of Quebec ruling that concluded it is unconstitutional to allow only Canadians who are already near death to seek medical help to end their lives.

Gagnon says his organization is disappointed and concerned that the federal government has refused to appeal the ruling and it objects to an online questionnaire recently conducted by the Department of Justice.

The questionnaire asked people to consider safeguards to prevent abuse if the foreseeable-death requirement is removed from the law, but Gagnon says its inappropriate to use a survey to address grave moral questions.

Our Government recognizes that medical assistance in dying is a complex and deeply personal issue

In his letter, Gagnon says bishops agree in principle with consulting Canadians, but a survey that was available online for only two weeks is insufficient.

In a statement late Friday night the Department of Justice said the recent online consultation focused on responding to the issues raised in the Truchon ruling.

It further noted that the government received nearly 300,000 responses from the public, demonstrating just how engaged Canadians are with this deeply significant issue.

Our Government recognizes that medical assistance in dying is a complex and deeply personal issue, the statement said. We remain committed to protecting vulnerable individuals while protecting the Charter rights of all Canadians.

But Gagnon, who is the Archbishop of Winnipeg, says the survey also failed to give attention to the fears and concerns of elderly people and those with disabilities.

The churchs ministry of healing and accompanying the sick involves national and regional networks of parishes and health-care institutions on which vulnerable Canadians and their families rely for support and care, he says.

We visit the elderly who are lonely, isolated, abandoned, and insufficiently supported by health care and community services. We listen to those who, gripped by a physical or psychological crisis, see no reason for going on.

All these people are endangered by assisted death and need advocacy, support and the protection afforded by the very safeguards the government is trying to overturn, he argues.

Experience has shown that patients are more likely to request help in dying when their pain is not properly managed or when they are lonely or socially marginalized, Gagnon adds.

He says palliative care has yet to become fully realized and accessible in Canada, even though it seeks to alleviate the pain, loneliness, fear and despair that can lead to the tragic failure of assisted death.

Gagnon urges the government to hear from parents of children with mental illness, health-care providers who do not wish to administer assisted death and elderly or disabled patients who have been abused by caregivers.

We, as bishops of the Catholic faithful in Canada, call on the government to engage in a more rigorous, impartial and prolonged study of the problems inherent in euthanasia/assisted suicide by involving those whose experiences offer a different perspective and even present inconvenient truths.

We call on the government to engage in a more rigorous, impartial and prolonged study of the problems inherent in euthanasia/assisted suicide

Trudeaus government has been considering how to amend the law in a way that safeguards against abuse.

Justice Minister David Lametti has said hed like to have a bill before the House of Commons as soon as possible.

Lametti has not ruled out requesting an extension to the March 11 deadline imposed by the court, but hes said he would first like to see what level of consensus exists in the House.

Dying with Dignity Canada has warned against applying more hurdles that could wind up unfairly depriving people of their right to an assisted death and being shot down again by the courts.

Requiring consultation with medical specialists, for instance, could create real barriers to access, especially for people living outside big cities, the organization has argued.

See the article here:

Catholic bishops urge Trudeau to scrap changes to assisted dying legislation - National Post

Sick and tired of pain, Kenyans fly out to procure aided suicide – Daily Nation

By STELLA CHERONOMore by this Author

The epitaph on her grave reads, To Live is Christ and to Die is Gain. It is somewhat a representation of how she lived and died.

Diana Elga Akinyi drafted the epitaph just days before she chose to die to free herself from excruciating pain and the numbing effects of medicines.

Long before she chose to die, Diana had had to bring herself to terms with her doctors verdict; that she had just a few days to live, because her malignant cancer had metastasized. But death was not coming, and her days were only filled with pain that only saw her use drug after drug.

In a corner of her room was a table laden with painkillers: Morphine oxycodone, fentanyl and others.

Her sister says that although these are the strongest painkillers, at some point they seemed not to help much. She was in so much pain.

She used to cry a lot, said the sister, who prefers anonymity in order to discuss the issue freely.

And so Diana continued waiting for death. When it was not coming eight years on, she made up her mind. She would fly out and have someone assist her to end her life.

This is Dianas tragic story.

She was involved in an accident that resulted in a spinal injury, which saw her confined to a wheelchair for six years after two years in a hospital bed.

My sister had an accident in 2009, narrated her sister sombrely. She was driving with her boyfriend on Ngong Road in the evening when their vehicle was hit head-on by another speeding car. The boyfriend died but she was injured.

Diana, she said, was taken to Kenyatta National Hospital and later transferred to Kijabe Hospital. For close to two months, she was in the High Dependency Unit and then transferred to the ward. She would stay in hospital for close to two years.

Doctors ruled out the possibility of her ever walking again and when she was discharged, she could only use a wheelchair.

She could not walk. We used to bathe her and clothe her. She wore diapers. We had to employ people to take care of her. None lasted a month. Initially, the forex bureau she used to work for sent her salary to her account for some time but stopped, I guess, because they lost hope in her ever going back to work, the sister said.

As Diana was undergoing treatment for spinal injury, she was diagnosed with liver cancer after she developed some persistent abdominal pain. Doctors said the cancer was in advanced stages and because she was already taking painkillers, it had not manifested itself.

The diagnosis made her condition worse. The doctors had to change her prescription and she had to undergo chemotherapy. She could not eat, her condition was pathetic Her skin was hideous, she lost weight, her voice disappeared, and she cried night and day. Her lips were red. When she could, she took out her frustrations on Facebook, where she shared her story, with her pictures, before and after the diagnosis. At some point, she was so weak she just wanted to die, her sister said.

On July 27, 2017 Diana wrote: I have lived all I could. I created friends. God gave me a family. They have done all they could. Life cannot be anymore; death nears yet so far. To live is Christ and to die is gain.

Two days later, she called all her family members to a meeting and had a simple request: she wanted assisted suicide.

She said she had researched about euthanasia online and she was going for it. By then her hospital bill had accumulated to Sh8.4 million and she knew that no matter how much we spent on her, she would still die. We refused and told her about the sanctity of life. We told her a miracle could happen; that euthanasia was illegal in Kenya That no hospital could agree to that. We refused although we knew her organs had failed.

Later, her condition got worse and we took her to a Nairobi hospital. Sometimes she would writhe in pain and, in her very frail voice, she asked every doctor to switch off the ICU machines. She wanted death so much. One day when my elder brother was alone with her, she asked that we take her to a country where euthanasia is legal. She said she had done research online and was ready to die. She was persistent, her sister said.

The family agreed to fly her to a European country that they prefer not to name and on October 16, 2017, she bid farewell to her brother, mother and sister.

The sister says Dianas last words to her were, thank you.

Wasnt it expensive flying all the way to Europe to die?

We spent less than half a million on travel, like Sh430,000 in total. The actual procedure was paid for by some activists my sister had met on social media. Apparently, she had joined some groups on Facebook and the members paid the hospital directly, she said.

They airlifted the body back to Kenya and buried it at the Langata Cemetery.

Dianas story is just one of many that illustrate the growing trend among Kenyans to seek mercy killings abroad in the face of laws banning the practice. Article 26 of the Constitution sanctifies life, making mercy killing illegal. The law states that no one should be deprived of their life intentionally, save for the extent authorised by the Constitution or any other written law.

However, several families have told the Saturday Nation that they have overseen assisted suicides and mercy killings of their kin who had endured a lot of pain, with no hope of being healed as the cost of medication skyrocketed with every passing hour.

Although the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Board says mercy killing is not acceptable, some Kenyans have confessed to the Saturday Nation that they subjected their kin to passive euthanasia, where they asked doctors to pull the plug or switch off the dependency machines in hospital after they realised that there was no hope of recovery.

A radio presenter confessed that when their four-year-old daughter who was born with mild methemoglobinemia, a blood disorder in which an abnormal amount of methemoglobin is produced, was later diagnosed with Leukaemia which affected her organs, they agreed as a family to just end her life.

Our baby was suffering, her hospital bill had accumulated to Sh3.6 million and that is after we sold our land to pay part of the bill. She had spent almost half of her life in hospital. She was in and out of ICU and we could feel her pain. One day, we just told her doctor to switch off the machines and let her die peacefully because her small body had endured so much pain. It was painful, because every parent wants their baby to be healthy. But ours was suffering and to deny her death meant prolonging her suffering, she said.

Asked whether she sometimes feels guilty for ending her daughters life, she said, No, she was suffering and there were no hopes at all. Her organs had failed and there was never going to be a miracle about that.

Assisted death and euthanasia in Kenya are classified as murder but, just like abortion, they are happening in secret. Nakuru-based criminal lawyer David Mongeri asserts that assisted suicide is simply murder.

Even when someone has requested you or consented to it, it is simply a crime, he told the Saturday Nation.

Article 43(2) also provides that a person shall not be denied emergency medical treatment. Similar provisions are also contained in international and regional human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, both of which Kenya has ratified.

Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Board chief executive officer, Dr Daniel Yumbya, says that the Code of Professional Conduct and Discipline that guides medical practitioners does not permit assisted suicide in whatever form.

Euthanasia in Kenya is illegal and doctors found conducting it should be prosecuted. It is criminal and unethical, he said, adding that there have been no formal complaints against any doctor in Kenya.

In April last year, the High Court in Narok sentenced a couple, Emmanuel Kiprotich Sigei, 25, and Irene Nalomuta Sigei, 23, to 15 years in jail for killing their one-and-half-year-old baby because she was sickly. The couple, residents of Nasitori in Narok South Sub-county, on February 6, 2014 bought a chemical used to spray livestock from an agrovet shop and gave it to baby Brenda Chepkorir.

Justice Justus Bwonwonga, while sentencing them, said: The duty of the accused as parents was to take care and protect the deceased. Instead, they murdered her. Even if the accused thought this type of killing was a form of euthanasia, since the child was crawling and sickly due to flu, it is still an offence.

Kenyans, and Africans in general, would traditionally rather have a person die naturally, even when there was no chance of survival, yet, since time immemorial, euthanasia has been practised, albeit under the tag of taboo.

Among the Nandi, for instance, the elderly who got tired of living would travel to Nandi and take their own lives by plunging down 150-metre cliffs overlooking Lelmokwo at Koigaro Falls into Chepteon River.

A resident of the area, Jeremiah Kosibon, said that in the olden days, those who courted death would hold hands, stand in line and then hunker backwards down the cliff.

This was a sure way of dying. There was the alternative of drowning in a river, but no one wanted to conduct this. It was easier this way, Mr Kosibon said.

The closest Africa has gone towards legalising euthanasia is when a South African court recently ruled that a terminally ill man, Robin Stransham-Ford, could have a doctor assist his death by lethal injection or lethal medication. But still, South Africa has not legalised euthanasia and, in fact, last year, it sentenced leading pro-euthanasia activist Sean Davison to three years in prison after he was found guilty of premeditated murder for helping three people to kill themselves.

In some countries such as Netherlands, euthanasia is permitted, but the law only allows it to be done on persons who are experiencing unbearable physical or mental suffering without possibility of cure.

A lot of paper work is done prior to euthanasia, which must be done under the supervision of a medical practitioner.

Other countries where euthanasia is legal are Belgium, Colombia, Luxembourg and Canada. Assisted suicide is also permitted in Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands.

In America, states like Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Hawaii, Vermont, Montana, Maine, New Jersey and California have legalised euthanasia.

My abilities have been in decline over the past year or two, my eyesight over the past six years I feel I have lost my dignity and self-respect I no longer want to continue living. Im happy to have the chance tomorrow to end it, Dr Goodall told the media in Switzerland before his death. He remains one of the most cited examples in global discourses on euthanasia.

There has been a push in Kenya for its legalisation but it has not really gained momentum. Ann Ngigi, an advocate of the High Court of Kenya once wrote: Kenya should legalise euthanasia and/or physician-assisted suicide for deserving cases. Without legal guidance, it is difficult to know when to cease life support if a patients condition will not improve.

There have been several debates in Parliament, at medical practitioners conferences, among lawyers and other fields. But religious leaders have been categorical that euthanasia should not be allowed.

Reverend Canon Peter Karanja, the former secretary of the National Council of Churches of Kenya, says that the Bible forbids killing.

Life is therefore of God. He gives, and he takes. We have no right whatsoever to take life, as the Fifth Commandment orders, he said.

He, however, separates the killing of someone who is sick from turning off machines in hospital, saying the latter is not killing.

There are instances when the family and the doctors are well aware that without the machines assisting life, a person will die. In this case, I think there is no need to hold on just because technology is available. I am however against instances where someone is subjected to a lethal injection, suffocation and the likes, simply because they are suffering from ill-health, he said.

Human rights crusader Abdimajid Mohamed Ali says that even though euthanasia happens, it is wrong.

It is bad. I will never advocate it. It is God who gives life and he is the one who takes it, why do you want to terminate it?

He says that according to the Koran, life is sacred.

In the Koran 17:33, Allah says in the Koran You shall not kill any person - for God has made life sacred, he said.

Sociologist Salmona Oketch observes that many people opt for mercy killing or assisted suicide after they lose hope in good health.

There are people who would rather die than subject their families to a lot of problems. Some of them would rather not see their dignity fade way so they go for what I would call premature death. I see nothing wrong with that, only that it is illegal here, she said.

Read the original post:

Sick and tired of pain, Kenyans fly out to procure aided suicide - Daily Nation