A collection of personal anecdotes co-authored by Art Sesnovich and Frank Quaglia

WORCESTER, Mass., April 27, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Vampires. Peeing monkeys. Clients who wore their clothes backwards. Even nudist wakes.

In four decades as a world-renowned funeral director a reputation enhanced by his role as the man who buried the Boston Marathon Bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev Peter Stefan truly saw it all. The owner of Graham Putnam Mahoney Funeral Parlors in Worcester, MA, Stefan met, buried, and worked with a cast of characters that kept his life, and his job, very interesting.

Many of the people and the stories that go with them - were so strange yet so amusing, Stefan felt compelled to put them into a collection entitled "Mumblings of a Mortician" (available on Amazon, $19.99 print, $14.99 Kindle). Written by co-authors Art Sesnovich and Frank Quaglia, the collection of personal anecdotes focus on the bizarre, head-shaking situations Stefan encountered as a funeral director, along with his unique perspective on various matters, both vital and trivial.

There was the Asian family that cooked a chicken in a hubcap on the floor of the viewing room, setting the carpet on fire in the process. There was the time when two funerals were going on at the same time, after which each funeral party followed the wrong hearse to the cemetery. There was the team of paranormal researchers, convinced there were ghosts in Stefan's building and that they had captured the creatures on film, only to discover it was Stefan's pipe smoke.

A special place has been reserved for Stefan's employees, like the one who came into work every morning feeling sick, only to recover in the afternoon. Stefan discovered the employee was brushing his teeth with hemorrhoid cream.

An entire chapter is devoted to the story behind Stefan's decision to bury the Boston Marathon Bomber, and how he accomplished this task with the attention of the world upon him. Many people respected his decision to perform the burial, believing, as he did, that every human being regardless of what they did in life - deserves a proper burial. Just as many, however, hated him for it; he received death threats daily, and police details were stationed outside his funeral home for days while the logistics were being worked out.

Not surprisingly, the unflappable Stefan bought pizza and soda for the protesters. Why? His answer was typically simple: "They were hungry."

And the peeing monkey? Little Bixby was a pet that a friend could no longer keep, so Stefan brought him home to his family. To show his gratitude to Stefan for saving him from certain euthanasia, Bixby constantly peed on him no one else, just him. Stefan was philosophical: "I should have been grateful: some monkeys throw their feces at people," he observed.

On a somber note, Stefan passed away on March 21, 2022 at the age of 85. He got to see his book in print, realizing a long-time dream of his.

Media Contact: Arthur Sesnovich508 612-4179[emailprotected]

SOURCE Arthur Sesnovich

Follow this link:

World-Renowned Mortician Publishes Collection of Stories About His Four Decades in the "Death Business" - PR Newswire

VATICAN CITY Pope Francis addressed the Vatican financial scandals in a sit-down radio interview that aired Wednesday, saying he hoped that Cardinal Angelo Becciu would be found innocent.

I hope with all my heart that he is innocent. Besides, he was a collaborator of mine and helped me a lot. He is a person whom I have a certain esteem as a person, that is to say that my wish is that he turns out well. In any case, justice will decide, the Pope told Carlos Herrera, a journalist at Spains COPE radio station.

Cardinal Becciu is one of 10 defendants in the Vaticans largest trial for financial crimes in the modern era, after the Pope changed the norms to allow cardinals to be tried by lay judges. Cardinal Becciu is accused of embezzlement and abuse of office, but vehemently denies any wrongdoing.

In the 90-minute interview, his first since undergoing colon surgery, Pope Francis spoke about the recent restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass, the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, the Vatican-China deal, euthanasia, and abortion.

I am not afraid of transparency or the truth. Sometimes it hurts, and a lot, but the truth is what sets us free, the Pope said when asked about corruption at the Vatican.

Lets hope that these steps we are taking in Vatican justice will help to make these events happen less and less Yes, you used the word corruption and, in this case, obviously, at least at first sight, it seems that there is corruption, he said.

COPE.

The Pope also addressed clerical sexual abuse and questioned why governments were not making greater efforts to eliminate child pornography.

Abusing a boy to film an act of child pornography is demonic. It cannot be explained without the presence of the devil, the Pope said.

I sometimes wonder how certain governments allow the production of child pornography. Let them not say they dont know. Nowadays, with the intelligence services, everything is known. A government knows who in its country produces child pornography. For me this is one of the most monstrous things I have ever seen, he said.

Pope Francis also praised Cardinal Sen OMalley of Boston for his work in establishing the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors.

I would like to pay tribute to a man who began to speak about this with courage, even though he was a thorn in the side of the organization, long before the organization was created on this subject, and that is Cardinal OMalley. It fell to him to settle the matter in Boston and it was not easy.

Restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass

Pope Francis described the publication of Summorum Pontificum, a 2007 apostolic letter lifting restrictions on the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal, as one of the most beautiful and human pastoral things of Benedict XVI, who is a man of exquisite humanity.

Then the subject was studied and based on that, the concern that appeared the most was that something that was done to help pastorally those who have lived a previous experience was being transformed into ideology. So we had to react with clear norms, the Pope said, explaining why he issued the motu proprio Traditionis custodes in July curbing celebrations of the Traditional Latin Mass.

Because it seemed to be fashionable in some places that young priests would say oh, no, I want and maybe they dont know Latin, they don't know what it means, he said.

Pope Francis said that he saw the need for pastoral care to be taken with some good limits.

For example, that the proclamation of the Word be in a language that everyone understands; otherwise it would be like laughing at the Word of God. Little things. But yes, the limit is very clear, he said.

Withdrawal from Afghanistan

When asked about the withdrawal of the United States and its allies from Afghanistan, the Pope said that all eventualities were not taken into account.

Pope Francis said that he was touched by something German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on the subject in Moscow on Aug. 20, but his paraphrased quotation was actually of words spoken by Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to AP.

It is necessary to stop the irresponsible policy of enforcing its own values on others and attempts to build democracy in other countries based on outside models without taking into account historic, ethnic and religious issues and fully ignoring other peoples traditions, Pope Francis said.

Concise and conclusive. I think this says a lot; and everyone can interpret it as they wish. But there I felt a wisdom in hearing this woman say this.

The Pope also said that the Vatican Secretariat of State was helping or at least offering to help with the situation in Afghanistan.

[Vatican Secretary of State] Cardinal Parolin is really the best diplomat I have ever met, the Pope added.

The Vatican-China Deal

Discussing the provisional agreement between the Holy See and China, first signed in 2018 and renewed in 2020, the Pope said: China is not easy, but I am convinced that we should not give up dialogue. You can be deceived in dialogue, you can make mistakes, all that... but it is the way. Closed-mindedness is never the way.

He continued: What has been achieved so far in China was at least dialogue ... some concrete things like the appointment of new bishops, slowly ... But these are also steps that can be questionable and the results on one side or the other.

The Pope added that Cardinal Agostino Casaroli, the Vatican Secretary of State for the first 10 years of John Paul IIs pontificate, was a model of Vatican diplomacy and spoke highly of his book, The Martyrdom of Patience.

Today, somehow we have to follow these paths of dialogue step by step in the most conflictive situations. My experience in dialogue with Islam, for example, with the Grand Imam Al-Tayyeb was very positive in this, and I am very grateful to him, he said, referring to the Grand Imam of al-Azhar in Egypt, with whom the Pope signed a declaration on human fraternity in 2019.

Euthanasia and Abortion

In the interview, the Pope also strongly defended the Churchs opposition to euthanasia and abortion.

We are living in a throwaway culture. What is useless is discarded. Old people are disposable material: they are a nuisance. Not all of them, but in the collective unconscious of the throwaway culture, the old... the most terminally ill, too; the unwanted children, too, and they are sent to the sender before they are born, he commented.

What the Church asks is to help people to die with dignity. This has always been done, he said.

And with regard to the case of abortion I say this: any embryology manual given to a medical student in medical school says that by the third week of conception, sometimes before the mother realizes [that she is pregnant], all the organs in the embryo are already outlined, even the DNA. It is a life. A human life. Some say, It's not a person. It is a human life.

The Pope then posed a question: Is it licit to eliminate a human life to solve a problem, is it fair to eliminate a human life to solve a problem?

Polite Devils

Asked about the devil, a theme that the Pope has often addressed since his election in 2013, Francis highlighted the danger of what he called polite devils.

The devil runs around everywhere, but I'm most afraid of the polite devils. Those who ring your doorbell, who ask your permission, who enter your house, who make friends, he said.

But Jesus never talked about that? Yes, he did when he says this: when the unclean spirit comes out of a man, when someone is converted or changes his life, he goes and starts to walk around, in arid places, he gets bored, and after a while he says Im going back to see how it is, and he sees the house all tidy, all changed. Then he looks for seven people worse than him and enters with a different attitude, he said.

That is why I say that the worst are the polite devils, those who ring the doorbell. The naivety of this person lets him in and the end of that man is worse than the beginning, says the Lord. I dread the polite devils. They are the worst, and one is very much fooled.

Not Watching Television

Pope Francis also told the story behind why he has not watched much television in the past 30 years.

I made a promise on July 16, 1990. I felt that the Lord was asking me to do so, because we were in community watching something that ended up tawdry, unpleasant, bad. I felt bad, he said.

It was the night of July 15. And the next day, in prayer, I promised the Lord not to watch it.

The Pope added that he does still tune in for important events, such as when a president takes office or when there is a plane crash.

But I am not addicted to it, he said.

His Recent Colon Surgery

Pope Francis said that life had returned to normal since undergoing a colon surgery on July 4 that required him to remain hospitalized for 11 days.

It is the second time in my life that a nurse has saved my life, the Pope said.

He saved my life. He told me: You have to have surgery. There were other opinions: Better with antibiotics but the nurse explained it to me very well. He is a nurse from here, from our health service, from the Vatican hospital. He has been here for thirty years, a very experienced man, he said.

Italian media identified the nurse as Massimiliano Strappetti, who has worked in the Vatican since 2002, after eight years serving in the intensive care unit at Romes Gemelli Hospital.

The Pope explained that his surgery had been pre-scheduled and that he has been eating regularly now after some weeks of recovery.

Now I can eat everything, which was not possible before with the diverticula. I can eat everything. I still have the post-operative medications, because the brain has to register that it has 33 centimeters [12 inches] less intestine.

The Pope also addressed the recent rumors about his resignation, saying that he had no idea about the rumors until someone told him.

I read only one newspaper here in the morning, the newspaper of Rome I read it quickly and that's it And I do receive the report about some of the news of the day, but I found out much later, a few days later, that there was something about me resigning, he said.

Whenever a Pope is ill, there is always a breeze, or a hurricane, of conclave.

Continued here:

Pope Francis Says That He Hopes Cardinal Becciu is Innocent of Charges in Vatican Finance Trial - National Catholic Register

That is not my experience. In the last weeks of my fathers life, the aggressive cancer spread to his brain, rendering him unable to read. At that point, with the cancer eating away at his mind, life was no longer bearable for him. He would have liked to have ended it, as he had long contemplated and researched. The pain of not being able to give him quietus on his own terms has never left me. Others have had worse and more traumatic experiences, watching their loved ones choke on their own faeces. For those who value dignity and autonomy, the progress of many diseases is especially cruel.

People are cruel too, though, and often venal. Another senior medico friend, who slyly calls himself a fundamentalist Asclepiad tells me of an experience he had as a medical student, when a woman asked him to put her mother down. Philosophically minded, as his suggested pseudonym suggests, he reflects on how this insight into human callousness shaped him: I am conscious that although we have more shiny things and vaccines, we still have the same brains our ancestors had 100,000 years ago, which motivate our desires and preferences. I would bear that in mind when considering why the Ancient Greek Asclepiads expressly forbade euthanasia, knowing about mission creep.

Loading

That is also the concern that former prime minister Paul Keating has expressed. If there are doctors prepared to bend the rules now, there will be doctors prepared to bend the rules under the new system. Beyond that, once termination of life is authorised the threshold is crossed. From that point it is much easier to liberalise the conditions governing the law. And liberalised they will be.

It is hard to escape that concern in reading Greenwichs revised 2021 bill. As much as I want to honour the memory of my father by supporting the right to die with dignity, it is easy to see how the conservative processes outlined could become desensitised routines. Much as the routines of lockdown have desensitised us to the shattering lives of individuals.

Australia needs to talk about death and the impulse to prolong life at all costs. We need to talk about the right to live and die with dignity. It is not an easy discussion. COVID makes it a bad time, but maybe the very best to have this conversation.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.

Visit link:

A COVID paradox: No right to live with your own risks but free to choose death - Sydney Morning Herald

A Nottingham priest has been blocked from becoming a university chaplain due to the way he 'expressed' his opinions around abortion and euthanasia.

Father David Palmer, serving in the diocese of Nottingham parish of St Mary's, has openly expressed his views via his personal Twitter account - saying that he believed assisted dying is "killing the vulnerable."

University of Nottingham said it is not concerned about Father Palmer's views but the manner in which they have been expressed.

It hoped to continue its 90-year tradition of providing Catholic chaplaincy.

The university has received a backlash from the Catholic community in Nottingham on social media who have rallied to the defence of Father Palmer.

Another Catholic Priest with the diocese of Nottingham, and former University of Nottingham chaplain, Father Jonathan Whitby-Smith tweeted in defence of Father Palmer and his opinions.

His said: "University of Nottingham took issue with Father David Palmer saying euthanasia is killing the vulnerable and abortion is the slaughter of innocents. As a Catholic I believe the same. So why did Notts Uni recognise me as Lay Catholic Chaplin 2010-12? Would they recognise me now? What's changed?"

A spokesperson for the Diocese of Nottingham said: The Diocese of Nottinghams first priority is sacramental provision for students and staff and as a result of discussions between the Bishop and the university, it has been agreed that Fr David will continue to offer Sunday Mass at the university, which is an essential part of the Catholic faith.

The Catholic Church is renowned for its commitment to social justice throughout its history. It is not surprising then that Catholics across the Diocese of Nottingham and beyond have a natural concern for the protection and dignity of all human beings, which includes offering practical support for women facing crisis pregnancies and care for their unborn children.

Following the news that he had been 'cancelled' as chaplain, Father Palmer tweeted: "Let's be honest.. we will never be accepted.. so we need to fight for the faith. To compromise is to surrender.. they don't want us."

The university have said that they welcome the views and values of Nottingham's chaplains.

The priest will continue to attend the university as a guest speaker for Sunday Mass, but his original predecessor will remain the university's recognised chaplain.

A spokesperson for University of Nottingham said: "The University of Nottingham values Catholic chaplaincy very highly as part of our multi-faith approach where dedicated chaplains provide invaluable support to staff and students of each faith.

"A University should be a place for the robust exchange of views and debate over ideas, and we have no issue with the expression of faith in robust terms - indeed we would expect any chaplain to hold their faith as primary.

"Our concern was not in relation to Father Davids views themselves, or the tenets of the Catholic faith which we fully respect, but the manner in which these views have been expressed in the context of our diverse community of people of many faiths.

"We are therefore grateful to the Bishop of Nottingham for his solution that the current chaplain remains the recognised chaplain and that Father David will attend the University campus each week to celebrate Sunday mass for staff and students.

"We are continuing a constructive dialogue with the diocese to ensure that staff and students of Catholic faith are fully supported under this arrangement.

"The University remains totally committed to continuing our 90-year tradition of providing Catholic chaplaincy."

Father David Palmer was approached for comment.

To read all of our biggest and best stories first sign up to our newsletter here.

Read the original here:

University of Nottingham 'cancels' Catholic priest over way views expressed - Nottinghamshire Live

Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson has delivered a dramatic message to the greyhound racing industry improve animal welfare and transparency or risk closure.

Robertson, who also holds the Minister for Racing portfolio, has put the industry on notice following a review of animal welfare and safety within the industry conducted, by Sir Bruce Robertson QC.

His report makes it clear the social licence to operate the sport of greyhound racing is under challenge, Grant Robertson said.

He concluded that if Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ) wants to secure its future it must demonstrate the decency of the industry, but it has made its job harder by unnecessarily obfuscating information and pushing back against those with an interest.

READ MORE:* Greyhound trainer fined $350 for hitting winning dog* Chle Swarbrick: Greyhound racing is cruel, and we must end it now* Greyhound Zipping Sarah wins race - while on methamphetamine* Review into greyhound racing and welfare launched by Racing Minister Grant Robertson* Dead dogs: 1447 greyhounds known to be euthanised in four years, report reveals

I want to be clear today the greyhound racing industry is on notice: either make the improvements needed or risk closure, he said.

ROBERT KITCHIN/Stuff

Grant Robertson has put the greyhound racing industry on notice.

Sir Bruce Robertson said in his report that GRNZs own data from, 2017 to August 1 2021, reveals 923 dogs have been euthanised with no reason given for 462 of the deaths.

The data gives medical euthanasia reasons, that did not occur at a racetrack, as 57 deaths due to aggression, 119 deaths because of illness and 285 deaths attributed to accident or injury.

No reason was given for the remaining 462 medical euthanasia deaths.

The report added the number of greyhounds euthanised has reduced significantly over the last four years, from an annual total of 348 down to 103 in the current year to date (7 months).

GRNZ has said it shares the Governments determination to ensure animal care is its top priority.

WARWICK SMITH/STUFF/Stuff

Sir Bruce Robertsons report accused the GRNZ of unnecessarily obfuscating information.

But in a statement released to Stuff, GRNZ strongly denies Grant Robertsons accusations of unnecessarily obfuscating information.

We must take issue with one aspect of the Ministers Statement we have provided an extensive and full submission and in no way have sought to obfuscate in any aspect of the review or any other information we have been asked to provide, a statement from GRNZ said.

WARWICK SMITH/STUFF

Greyhound owners get together to show how lovely the breed can be off the track. (Video first published June 2019)

The Robertson report said: GRNZ has made its job harder by unnecessarily obfuscating information and pushing back against those with an interest.

Arguably GRNZ has data to support its stances on the issues raised in this report but is seen as unwilling to share this, Sir Bruce Robertson said in his conclusion.

Following the reports findings, Grant Robertson has asked for three fundamental issues to be addressed, with a deadline of the end of next year.

They are data recording, transparency of all activities and animal welfare generally.

He has asked the newly formed Racing Integrity Board, which replaced the now-defunct Racing Integrity Unit, to identify a specific set of indicators over each of the three points that will be used to assess the industrys progress and report back to him before the end of 2022.

GRNZ supported that stance.

GRNZ wishes to provide a categorical assurance of our determination to work with the Minister, the RIB and the communities we serve to ensure high standards of animal care and access to verified and transparent data, its statement read.

Robyn Edie/Stuff

Greyhounds are loaded into the boxes for a race at the Ascot Park Raceway

GRNZ submitted a 28-page submission for Sir Bruce Robertsons report that remains publicly available on its website.

It has significant detail in its submission that, it claims, to show euthanasia statistics dropping significantly and rehoming numbers booming.

Grant Robertson announced the current review in April this year, claiming he was not satisfied with the industry's work on animal welfare following the 2017 Hansen Report, undertaken by former High Court judge Rodney Hansen QC.

The report revealed 1447 greyhounds had been euthanised between the 2013/14 and 2016/17 seasons but alarmingly, there were also 1271 dogs who are unaccounted for.

Sir Bruce Robertsons report said there has been an obvious effort by GRNZ to reduce the reliance on euthanasia when dealing with injured dogs, or dogs that are difficult to rehome since 2017.

But some submitters to his review had claimed there was an implicit no euthanasia policy to make the figures look better and that was negatively impacting the welfare of greyhounds.

His report suggested some submitters believed dogs were being kept alive despite catastrophic injuries or being permanently housed in kennels to avoid becoming an euthanasia statistic.

Sir Bruce Robertson said it is difficult to access accurate information regarding injuries, euthanasia, rehoming numbers, population projection, whelped puppies, and health statistics.

Publicly available statistics are often vague and limited to general euthanasia and injury statistics, his report said.

Until there is a change regarding that transparency and communication, there will be suspicion and distrust, and a rational robust and reliable assessment cannot be made.

GRNZs statement claims it is now matching the number of dogs rehomed with those bred annually and figures of that are available in its submission.

New Zealand animal rights organisation, SAFE, saw the review as pressure mounting for a ban on greyhound racing.

"Were not surprised by the findings. They confirm what weve been saying all along," SAFE spokesperson Will Appelbe said.

"This is a good first step, but anything other than a total ban on greyhound racing continues to put dogs at risk."

Original post:

'Greyhound racing industry is on notice': Grant Robertson says the sport risks closure without welfare changes - Stuff.co.nz

Shelter Island Police arrested Stephanie J. Bucalo, 64, at 6:48 p.m. on Aug. 31, charging her with 18 counts of animal cruelty, torturing and injuring animals and failure to provide proper sustenance.

The charges were brought under the New York State Agricultural & Markets Law. Eighteen additional counts were made against Ms. Bucalo under the Town Code for having unlicensed dogs.

Police reported that the 18 dogs were subjected to urine and feces [and] severe untreated medical conditions requiring euthanasia.

Ms. Bucalo was processed at Police Department headquarters and released. Shes due to appear at Justice Hall on Sept. 3.

As reported in an earlier Reporter story, police had gone to Ms. Bucalos North Ferry Road residence on Aug. 27.

Det. Sgt. Jack Thilberg said that the Town executed a court-ordered search warrant on the residence and the dogs were seized under the warrant for Shelter Island Town Code and New York State Agricultural and Markets Law violations.

The house has been the subject of complaints from neighbors for years about multiple dogs barking and howling at all hours of the day and night. It was shuttered by the Shelter Island Police and Building departments Aug. 27, and the 18 dogs were removed and put into shelters.

The Towns building inspector determined the residence to be unsafe on Aug. 27 for entry and put up placards saying the residence was not to be occupied.

According to police reports, the animals were transported by the Town Highway Department to three shelters on Long Island, to be examined and treated as needed.

Det. Sgt. Thilberg noted that the Town Code states that the life, health or well-being of any person or animal, or upon a showing that a dog or dogs have been charged with three or more violations of this chapter within 30 days any Court of competent jurisdiction may grant access onto and in to private property for the purpose of investigating or seizing any dog or dogs in violation of this chapter.

And there had been three summonses for barking dogs within the past 30 days.

Two years ago, residents packed a Town Board meeting to air complaints about hearing barking, howling, yelping, whining constantly for years at the North Ferry Road residence.

See the original post here:

Arrest in ill-treatment of 18 dogs - Shelter Island Reporter - Shelter Island Reporter

What is proposed?

The Dying with Dignity Bill 2020 is being considered by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, having been referred to it by the Dil.

The Bill allows for voluntary euthanasia and assisted dying.

Under the terms of the Bill, a person must have capacity to make their own decision and be terminally ill. They do not have to be nearing death, and do not have to have significant and ongoing decline, or be facing intolerable suffering.

Two medical practitioners must approve their eligibility. The Bill provides for the establishment of a review committee.

Euthanasia: the general term used to refer to steps deliberately taken with the intention of ending a persons life.

Voluntary euthanasia: where a lethal substance is directly administered to an individual at their own request.

Assisted suicide: providing someone else with the knowledge or means to end their life, at their request. The main distinction that is usually made between euthanasia and assisted suicide is with regard to who performs the final, fatal act the individual themselves or someone else.

Assisted dying: used to refer to both voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Switzerland: Assistance with suicide is considered a crime and open to prosecution only if selfish interests are involved. Right-to-die organisations are involved in the process of assisted suicide.

Since it is open to Swiss citizens, foreigners resident there and those who travel from other countries, Switzerland has become an international destination for assisted dying.

The Netherlands: Requests can be made by people from other countries, but a physician must assess whether the patients suffering is unbearable and wont improve, and that their request is voluntary and well considered. The law does not distinguish between physical and psychological suffering, and it allows for euthanasia on a person with dementia in limited circumstances. Euthanasia now accounts for 4.2 per cent of all deaths, a more than threefold increase since 2003.

Finland: An expert working group is examining regulatory needs concerning end-of-life care, and patients right to self-determination, including terminal care and euthanasia.

Canada: Assisted suicide has been legal since 2016. There were just over 1,000 cases in 2015, and over 5,600 in 2019.

New Zealand: It held a referendum on the End of Life Choice Act, to authorise the administration of a lethal dose of medication to competent adults with a terminal illness likely to end their life within six months, should they request it. More than 60 per cent voted in favour. The Act will come into force this year.

Go here to see the original:

Assisted dying: How has it worked in other countries? - The Irish Times

Jaume Vives wanted to be direct about the reality of euthanasia, but he had to settle for Euthanasia? #Hijacked debate. The residents association of the apartment building told him his initial message for a 500-square meter banner he got permission to hang from the building was too explicit.

Were legislating euthanasia, but when we wanted to talk about it, to show what it is, we were told it was too aggressive, he said.

Mr. Vives, a member of the Association of Catholic Activists and leader of Vividores (The Living), a campaign to fight the legalization of euthanasia in Spain, was also denied space on public transportation by the private company that manages bus advertising.

Hijacked debate may be the best description of how euthanasia will become legal in Spain.

A bill to legalize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide for adults facing incurable illness, irreversible disability and even mental illness as a subjective right is expected to pass Spains Senate by the end of March, the final hurdle before it becomes law. The lower chamber of the Spanish Parliament approved the law on Dec. 17, rushed through in a special session of the Congress of Deputies without expert testimony and over the objections of both the countrys bioethics committee and its doctors association.

Spain is not the only country in Europe that has taken significant steps toward the decriminalization or legalization of euthanasia. Portugals Congress approved a euthanasia bill in February 2020, and its Senate voted it into law at the end of January.

Ireland has also taken steps to legalizing euthanasia, and courts in Germany, Italy and Austria recently handed down decisions that could that open the way for its legalization. Last October, New Zealand became the first country to legalize euthanasia through referendum. Physician-assisted suicide is also legal in Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Colombia, the Australian state of Victoria and eight U.S. states.

In response to the growing legal acceptance of euthanasia, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith reiterated church teaching in September in the letter Samaritanus Bonus. Spanish bishops published their own letter on the issue last December, Sowers of Hope, in which they reminded Catholics that there is no one that cant be cared for even if they are incurable. The bishops called for a day of prayer and fasting on the eve of the laws vote and have encouraged the faithful to include explicit instructions in their advanced directives that they do not wish to be euthanized.

The recent rash of pro-euthanasia legislation and court decisions suggest that euthanistic notions of a dignified death have gained acceptance in politics, courts and among the general public in Europe. But most physicians and bioethicists still oppose euthanasia, according to Lopold Vanbellingen, a researcher at the European Institute of Bioethics.

Bioethicists and political observers say public opinion in Spain has been groomed over the course of decades to consider euthanasia a medical treatment for pain. They add that an ideology of personal autonomy converging with the sensibilities of a consumerist culture have changed expectations of the role of doctors in attending to suffering.

Asking the right questionsThe Spanish law was approved with very little social debate beforehand, said Montserrat Esquerda of the Borgia Institute of Bioethics in Barcelona. There have been various cases exploited in the media that have [helped promote acceptance of euthnasia] and some public opinion polls in which there wasnt clarification and verification of what the person understood as euthanasia.

Those polls find consistentsupport for euthanasia from Spaniards, but according to experts, the circumstances detailed in many survey questions better describepalliative care, not euthanasia.

Theres a very clear confusion in terms, and many people equate euthanasia with a death without pain, Ms. Esquerda explained.

Euthanasia broke into the public consciousness in Spain in the 1990s, when Ramn Sampedro, a quadriplegic, began a series of lawsuits seeking assistance to end his life, reaching up as far as the European Commission on Human Rights. He lost in every court.

In 1998, his family and friends helped him carry out a plan to end his life with cyanide so that no one could be convicted of assisting in his suicide. His story was turned into the Oscar-winning 2004 movie The Sea Inside.

Since then, almost a dozen attempts to decriminalize euthanasia have come through the Spanish parliament without becoming law.During the 2019 national elelctions, the Socialist presidential candidate, Pedro Snchez, pledged to make euthanasia legal should he be elected.

That campaign followed on the heels of the highly publicized death of Mara Jos Carrasco. Ms. Carrasco, 61, had suffered from multiple sclerosis for 30 years. Her husband, ngel Hernndez, filmed her asking him to help her end her life several days in a row and then gave her a drink laced with a lethal dose of medication.

Mr. Snchez and his party won the November 2019 elections. After he consolidated his government with the support of far-left parties, the euthanasia bill went before the parliament again in January 2020.

The Spanish Medical Organization had come out against legalizing euthanasia in May 2018, stating that it contradicted the Hippocratic oath. The Spanish Society for Palliative Care also announced its opposition.

In a unanimous decision, the Bioethics Committee of Spain, an independent consultative body attached to the Ministry of Health, advised against the law in March 2020. There exist solid health, ethical, legal, economic, and social reasons to reject the transformation of euthanasia into a personal right and a public service, the committee concluded.

But that credentialed opposition to euthanasia was ignored. In parliament, supporters of the bill blocked expert testimony.

Customer service providers or professionals of the healing arts?The Bioethics Committee of Spains 74-page opinion addressed how recent changes in the expectations of patients are affecting medicine. The committee noted that there has been an evolution in the clinical relationship that has put the patient at the epicenter of health care.

But, it continued, It is essential to emphasize that even if the patient is the center of the clinical relationship, the doctor is responsible for indications and contraindications and is co-responsible in making decisions.

Is medicine still theart of curingand, if not possible,of healing, or has medicine become a commercialservice like everything else, at everyones disposal,according to his or her wishes? Mr. Vanbellingen asked.

The committee found neither a medical indication for euthanasia to alleviate suffering nor a legal and ethical justification for deriving a right to physician-assisted suicide from an individual desire to die.We do not think that such compassion ethically or legally legitimizes a request that, not finding support in true autonomy either, can be attended to within the present context of palliative care, social support and health care, it stated.

Mr. Verbellingen pointed out that although euthanasia laws intend to limit the context of the practice, the criteria established in the laws are too subjective, leading to death on demand.

Palliative care versus euthanasiaSpain also highlights the difficulty of countering enthusiasm for euthanasia with the benefits of palliative care alone. In the 2019 Atlas of Palliative Care in Europe, published by the European Association of Palliative Care, Spain ranked 31st of 51 countries in capacity for palliative care, landing alongside Georgia and Moldavia. It estimated that 80,000 people a year die in Spain without receiving the palliative care they need.

According to Ms. Esquerda, there is a parallel capacity gap in care for people who are disabled or who are suffering long-lasting degenerative illnesses. Both doctors and politicians know that Spains public health care system lags in care for the very infirm.

Four proposals to strengthen palliative care have come before the parliament, according to Mr. Vives, but none became law. Politically, palliative care isnt attractive, he said, especially compared to the splash of granting citizens the apparent autonomy to free themselves from suffering.

Samaritanus Bonus also reminds Catholics that at the individual level, palliative care alone is not enough to overcome the desire to end suffering through death.

Palliative care cannot provide a fundamental answer to suffering or eradicate it from peoples lives.To claim otherwise is to generate a false hope, and cause even greater despair in the midst of suffering, it states. Terminal illness causes a profound suffering in the sick person, who seeks a level of care beyond the purely technical.

To assuage their suffering, they need the wine of hope that comes through faith in God and to experience a solidarity and a love that takes on the suffering, offering a sense of life that extends beyond death, and someone who remains at the bedside of the sick to bear witness to their unique and unrepeatable value, the document teaches.

Ms. Carrascos story suggests both the gaps of medical support in Spain and the necessity of human and spiritual accompaniment of the terminally ill and disabled. She had been on a waiting list to enter a residential care facility since 2007 to offer a respite to her husband, who had been her sole caretaker and was in his late fifties. In 2018, her husband, then 68, suffered a herniated disk from lifting Ms. Carrasco.

She was granted a temporary placement in a facility, but that was delayed in a snaggle of bureaucracy. Her husbands surgery had to be postponed because there was no one else to care for Ms. Carrasco. In September 2018, her health declined further and she could barely eat or talk.

She was offered both a feeding tube and palliative care, including partial sedation, but refused all additional treatment, reportedly stating, I dont want to sleep, I want to die. Her husband had said he recorded his wifes death to show their suffering and abandonment.

The desire for a good death and lifeBesides influencing public policy, the Vividores campaign seeks to reach the people who are suffering and looking for meaning in their lives, Mr. Vives said. He believes that most people do not want to answer suffering with death.

The campaigns website includes a series of interviews with people living with joy despite disabilities and degenerative diseases. Those interviews have generated the most positive response to the anti-euthanasia campaign.

We have the example of many people who have written us and called [to tell us] that they saw the interviews, that listening to the interviews [changed] their understanding of life and their problems, Pablo Velasco, another organizer, said. Even if the law passes, the campaign was not a failure.

Vividores organizers say they are going to keep the campaign going as the law proceeds through the Senate, and if it passes, they plan to continue with a deeper educational and public opinion campaign over the next five years to try to overturn it.

More from America:

Read more here:

The Catholic Church in Spain is losing the euthanasia debate. Can it re-enter the conversation if it becomes legal? - America Magazine

GUNTERSVILLE, Ala. A Guntersville veterinary clinic doctor is refuting allegations of improper euthanasia received by News 19.

One person emailed News 19 stating they took seven kittens to Guntersville Animal Hospital & Surgery Center over the summer after finding them abandoned on the side of the road.

They said all but two, which appeared to have some sort of eye infection and congestion, appeared to be in perfect health.

The person chose Guntersville Animal Hospital & Surgery Center in hopes the kittens could be adopted.

They explained that when they called the veterinarian office about six hours later, they were told the all of the kittens had been euthanized.

The complainant said they were later made aware that the veterinarian clinic directly profits from the euthanasia of animals inside the city limits.

The rumor comes after we began investigating Marshall County Animal Control after complaints from former shelter volunteers regarding Animal Control Officer Kevin Hoks falsifying documents to show a lower euthanasia rate than there actually is.

Dr. Chuck Young told News 19 that Guntersville Animal Hospital & Surgery Center workers are paid for services rendered for euthanasia, but do not make a profit from it.

He explained via a written statement that out of the 455 animals picked up in 2020 by Animal Control, there were 57 that they brought to them.

He explained that 27 were adopted and 30 were put to sleep after being told by Hooks that they were debilitated, sick, aggressive or court-ordered animals.

It equates to a 6% euthanasia rate, according to Young.

He told News 19 they put those animals to sleep to minimize their suffering.

Young also addressed documentation that several animals were not held for the mandatory seven-day hold at Guntersville Animal Hospital & Surgery Center.

Young explained that during their time there, the animals became significantly sick and were euthanized.

He told News 19 he recently spoke with a former Marshall County Animal Shelter volunteer and believes her concerns to be legitimate and should be heard out by the county.

He added that he does think there should be adjustments in the Animal Control department.

See full statement below:

The county administration came to GAH several years ago, just as they have done with other hospitals in the county asking if we would be willing to help with animals that were debilitated, sick or aggressive. We have done that to the best of our ability, only doing what they asked of us regarding these animals. Out of 455 animals picked up in 2020 there were 57 that they brought to us, of those 27 were adopted and 30 debilitated, sick, aggressive or court ordered animals were put to sleep. If these were the only numbers counted in the county out of the 455 then that is 6% rate. Anyone that took the time to look at the euthanasia rates for counties across the state would realize these numbers are actually better than most. The county does not bring the healthiest most adoptable animals to us as they always pick up or get the worst cases turned over to them thus there are always going to be some that for humanities sake need to be put to sleep to minimize their suffering. Some of these animals that were being temporarily held for the 7 days got significantly sick during this time and had to be put to sleep at that point. We have never put any animal down before it was mandated without a justifiable reason. It is not fair for any animal to have to go through this degree of suffering when we have the ability to alleviate it. Veterinarians across the US perform euthanasia every day to minimize all types of animal suffering and it is no different in these cases when a patient has no owner, is sick and no one willing to take care of them. And even if they did many of these cases could not be turned around regardless of the medicine or money after a certain point. All of us here just as in other hospitals have dedicated and spent our lives helping heal and take care of animals and do not look for reasons to euthanize any animal. It should be perfectly clear to anyone how hard we work to get animals adopted by going to our website shelter page as well as our facebook page, which we update daily trying to get every animal placed. And it is not hard to see how passionate we are about adoption and finding as many as possible their forever home given all the happy adoption customers we have on a daily basis. Our nurses that take care of the shelter are distraught that anyone would think that they would intentionally hurt any animal or be complicit in anything inside that category. None of us were consulted or asked our side before any of this came out. We give complete tours of our entire facility for anyone to see how every patient is cared for. I am not sure what the county will do if we or the others stop helping them because of the negative publicity over this issue or what will happen to animals that are sick, debilitated or suffering but we cannot afford to damage our professional carriers or reputations over this issue when the counties requests are an incredibly small fraction of a percent of what we do and any money that was received mostly covered expenses. If shelter work was profitable, they would be everywhere, its a hard job and most do not want to do it especially when it comes to these decisions. We have not been to other public or private facilities in our county and cannot speak for how things are done or kept but as anyone can attest thats been here, everything is kept immaculately and done absolutely by the book, and anyone that says otherwise we would challenge to come see. On top of this all our records are turned over to the county for them to be used at their discretion. We have no idea if the total euthanasia numbers are below 10% for the county as we do not see that information, but they would need to be below the 10 percental for them to be considered no kill. If they are not then they should be considered low risk as well as making sure they reflect accurately where each animal went and what happened in each circumstance. In addition, this information should be made available to the public. If there are any fiscal or structural changes that could or should be made in county protocol hopefully those can and will be made to make for a more transparent process. We would like to think that no one in any setting, shelter or otherwise, would ever enjoy watching debilitated, sick or aggressive animals suffer without intervening, even if it means letting them go peacefully with help but with that being said we do not want any animal that is potentially adoptable not to have the opportunity to find a home. We do everything on our side of the fence to make that happen and hopefully the country will as well. We do not mind trying to help them deal with animals but do not want to be accused of things in the public sphere that are well outside of our control when we were only doing our best to help for the sake of the animals. We have just talked with Mary Harris and Natalie Burwick in the past several days about these issues and we understand they do have legitimate concerns and should be heard in regards to their questions and recommendations regarding the county. They as well understand we did not intentionally cover any of these numbers up and have relied on the county giving us accurate information regarding each animal as well to publish it. We above all hope that the county will be able to get the funding to open a facility in the future and will try to help in any way we can with making that happen.

Read the original here:

Guntersville veterinarian responds to allegations of profiting from animal euthanasia - WHNT News 19

Amendments to Canadas euthanasia law threaten traditional standard of care

The Canadian Parliament is debating a major expansion of the countrys 2016 euthanasia act. Critics say that the amendments will make Canadas law the most permissive in the world.

Bill C-7 intends to give access to Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) to people whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. It establishes more relaxed eligibility rules for those who are near death, including a form of advance directives, and more stringent rules for those who are not.

Writing in Policy Options, Trudo Lemmens, Mary Shariff and Leonie Herx contend that C-7 endorses an ablist prejudice that life with a disability has less dignity or is less worth living. It transforms MAiD from a procedure to facilitate dying into a terminal therapy for lifes suffering.

The particular effect they zero in on is that the Bill abrogates a doctors traditional standard of care, which obliges physicians to apply their skills and intricate knowledge to a patients particular clinical circumstances. Instead patient choice becomes the criterion for deciding whether or not he or she is eligible for MAiD.

That physicians need to obtain informed consent from the patient before engaging in MAiD is obviously key. But they must also generally act according to the standard of care which is based on evidence-informed standards, shared among professionals and in line with their acquired clinical expertise.

The fact that a patient ultimately consents to a treatment proposed by a physician does not dislodge this a priori standard. It is part of medical practice that physicians can present only those medical treatment options that are reasonably and objectively indicated based on the standard of care.

They use the example of a hip replacement to illustrate the problem. Before surgery, which is risky and painful, a doctor will advise a patient to modify his lifestyle or to use pain medication. He doesnt reach for a scalpel immediately.

But C-7 effectively allows a patient to self-diagnose his enduring and intolerable suffering and to prescribe the remedy, death. This is obviously a very tricky problem for patients with mental disorders.

This is a stunning reversal of the central role of the medical and legal concept of the standard of care. It lifts informed consent up to the status of the sole arbiter of what constitutes proper medical practice. This development is also internationally unprecedented. Even the three most permissive MAiD regimes in the world -- Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, the only ones that currently permit physician-provided ending of life outside the end-of-life context -- treat MAiD rightly as the last resort, available when no other options are seen to remain.

The authors caustically observe that Canadian doctors have surrendered their professional integrity.

By supporting Bill C-7, medical organizations are handing over to patients the determination of professional standards. They are thereby also abandoning their commitment to patients to provide the best evidence-informed care, based on the concept of informed consent that we also know is rarely if ever fully realized in practice.

Parliamentary critics are also alarmed at the haste with which the law is changing. Colleagues, how did we get to this point, where we are debating an overhaul of our entire regime a few short years after its enactment and before we have even undertaken a parliamentary review? asked Opposition Senate leader Don Plett this week. As has been said before, we are here because of a lower court decision made by one judge, in one province and because the government chose not to defend its own legislation.

Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge

MORE ON THESE TOPICS |

View original post here:

Amendments to Canada's euthanasia law threaten traditional 'standard of care' - BioEdge

An atheist advocate and doctor have added their voices to a crucial legal challenge to determine whether or not euthanasia should be legalised in South Africa.

The last time the issue was raised in court in South Africa was in 2015 when lawyer Robert Stransham-Ford, who was dying, launched an urgent application in the Pretoria High Court for an order that a doctor be legally entitled to give him a lethal dose to end his life.

It was an individual application, not done in the public interest. Judge Hans Fabricius ruled in his favour, but unbeknown to the judge, Stansham-Ford died, naturally, two hours before the judgment.

The case went to the Supreme Court of Appeal, the State respondents fearing a precedent.

In essence, the SCA ruled that this was not the right matter to develop the common law and that Judge Fabriciuss ruling was moot and had no effect since Stansham-Ford had died already.

Now medical doctor Suzanne Walter, a palliative care specialist, and her patient Diethelm Harck, who have both been diagnosed with terminal diseases, are hoping to persuade Johannesburg High Court Judge Raylene Keightly to develop the law to allow both physician-assisted suicide (PAS) (where the doctor prescribes and the patient self-administers) and physician assisted euthanasia (PAE) (where the doctor administers any medicine to end life).

The matter is set down for hearing on 22 February, and is expected to start with the evidence of Walter, who was diagnosed in February 2017 with Multiple Myeloma, and Harck, who was diagnosed in 2013 with Motor Neuron Disease.

In pleadings they both say they are suffering torturing symptoms. While it is not unlawful for them to commit suicide, they fear when the time is right, they will not be capable of swallowing pills or self-administering medication.

If a willing doctor were to help them, he or she would face criminal charges and would also face being struck off the roll by the Health Professionals Council of South Africa (HPCSA) for unprofessional conduct.

The two say that the law as it stands, and the attitude of the HPCSA, impinge on their right to dignity and right to live a life and choose the way they want to die.

They want Parliament to enact legislation to give effect to their rights to self-determination. In the meantime, they say, the court should rule that any mentally competent terminally ill person may approach the high court for an order allowing them to undergo either PAS or PAE.

Joining their cause as friends of the court are Advocate Bruce Leech and Dr Paul Rowe, both atheists.

In an affidavit filed with the court, Leech says public policy is rooted in the Christian ethic inherited via South Africas colonialist legal systems first of Roman-Dutch Law and then of English Law. So too is the HPCSAs rule against PAS and PAE.

Christian values are imposed directly and indirectly on people who do not necessarily share those values. I do not share these beliefs and neither does Dr Rowe.

And once it is shown that this is the case, the retention of this policy is plainly a limitation imposed on the right under the Constitution to freely exercise ones religious choice and freely believe or think what one chooses.

The decriminalisation of PAS and PAE does not in any way infringe on the rights of those who do not believe in PAS and PAE, based on their own religious and moral convictions.

The HPCSA and the State respondents, the Ministers of Health, Justice, and the National Director of Public Prosecutions are all opposing the application.

The HPCSA says doctors should be willing to obey its code of conduct which protects the public and is in the best interests of patients. It says the ban on euthanasia and assisted suicide does not offend the Constitution, and if it does, it is justified because it is necessary to protect the right to life and protect and preserve trust in the doctor-patient relationship.

Medicine and medical treatment ameliorates the pain and suffering of those who have or are in the terminal phase of a serious disease. Such treatments are available (to Walter and Harck) and are progressively being made available to all persons in South Africa.

The state respondents have essentially denied all the allegations made and say Walters and Harck are not entitled to the legal relief they seek.

Civic organisation Cause of Justice, also a friend of the court, is also opposing the application. The organisation says doctors must not be allowed to kill a person because no matter the loss of quality of life, each human life has inherent worth.

To depart from the principle will result in a cultural shift and a slippery slope towards acceptance of death as a solution to human pain and suffering. We must guard against this at all costs.

The Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) has been given permission by Judge Keightly to present evidence.

It supports the right to die with dignity.

Attorney Sheena Swemmer said the case raises important constitutional issues about the rights to human dignity, life, health and bodily autonomy.

The Centre will present evidence from experts in Canada, the Netherlands and Oregon, in the USA, where assisted dying is legal.

These specialists are well-placed to outline the policies and checks and balances and provide first hand experience in implementing them.

They are also able to speak more generally to the evolution of medical ethics and the nature of terminal illnesses and end of life care generally, she said.

After the evidence of Walters and Harck, the matter is expected to be adjourned until later this year.

Read: Push to raise the drinking age in South Africa: report

See the rest here:

Court to decide on euthanasia and right to die in South Africa - BusinessTech

Maltas leading ALS activist Bjorn Formosa believes euthanasia should be made available for certain cases.

Im a terminal patient. Im not in favour of euthanasia personally, Im in favour of life and Im ready to live until Im 100, Formosa clarified when asked his position on L-Erbga Fost Il-imga.

However, the activist said, his organisation encounters patients with the most unforgiving diseases, people often hidden away from the publics knowledge.

ALS and Huntingtons disease are some of the worse diseases out there, Formosa continued.

There are also extremes, like locked-in syndrome, when a patient is completely paralysed they cant even blink but are conscious of whats happening. Imagine spending day after day without being able to move. Its not my place to tell such a desperate person that they need to live.

If I lost my faculty of speech and ability to move my eyes, how would I do the work Im doing? We need to understand each individuals case and their sense of life, the ALS activist added.

Active euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal in Malta, but the debate has reached national discourse.

Prime Minister Robert Abela has called for a serious discussion on the issue after Deputy Leader Daniel Micallef made a public appeal for a debate after his father battled a serious illness before dying. On a European level, MEP Cyrus Engerer had told this newsroom that he was in favour of having the choice in Malta.

Lovin Malta also interviewed Maltese assisted-dying campaigner Sam Debattista who was diagnosed with Huntingtons Disease at the age of 17.

However, it seems Maltas MPs are still cold to the idea of introducing legislation on euthanasia.

Read Lovin Maltas analysis on the state of euthanasia debate on Malta and around the world here.

Tag someone that needs to read this

See original here:

WATCH: ALS Activist Bjorn Formosa Believes Euthanasia Should Be There For Those Who Need It - Lovin Malta

Bachelorette Lexie Brown, before the reality kicked in. Photo / TVNZ

OPINION:

No. No, it hasn't got any better, not by a hair, not even by a Planck length (the smallest possible size for anything in the universe, equivalent to around a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a cm across), but a good and indeed very gratifying development of the latest series of The Bachelorette is that it hasn't got any worse.

Episode three on Monday night had a lightness of being, as though it had thrown in the towel. It didn't pretend it had much life left in it. It didn't rage against the dying of the light. It was as though the show had signed up for last year's referendum result: euthanasia.

Or maybe it bucked the result of that other referendum and was stoned.

Either way, it made for very mellow viewing. Hottie Lexie, the show's trophy bride waiting at the altar for her favoured drongo, went to the zoo with one of the drongos. I cannot remember his name. It may have been Jack, Jock, Spock or Sprongo.

They looked at some giraffes. The giraffes were very tall. There were trees in the background. The day was overcast. A zookeeper said a few words. Lexie and Jack/Jock giggled, dragged their feet, yawned.

There was something woozy about their date. At one point I thought the giraffes were going to say a few words, too, but it was possible to detect a harsh reality at the margins. That is: Spock/Sprongo doesn't stand a chance.

Their date was in the friend zone. It got nowhere near the erotic zone. It wasn't physical, it wasn't chemical, it just didn't look right. And actually, this crucial absence is beginning to look evident in a number of Lexie's eligible drongos.

There's that guy who got plastered in a previous episode on a glass and a half of red. He doesn't look right next to Lexie; she looks like she wants to run away, politely. There's that American guy who comes across as aggressive, surly, competitive, and those vibes don't make him look right next to chilled-out Lexie; she looks like she wants to run for the hills, fast.

And then there's that guy with an apartment in Paris. "I don't know if I'm cool enough for him?", said Lexie, her rising inflection soaring to the height of a giraffe. He's not that cool. He wore a pair of dungarees. But he doesn't look right next to her, either. She looks like she wants to run, and reflect on why it is that cool is often synonymous with deeply boring.

7 Feb, 2021 03:45 AMQuick Read

But the guy with his hair in a bun looks right next to her. He was the one who said to her the second they met, "Hello, gorgeous". She chose him as her very first date. The whole series could easily have wrapped up then and there. Jock/Spock, Plastered Guy, American Psycho, Cool Boring Guy and most of the others just don't measure up to Bun Guy.

The Bachelorette could be heading for a quick exit euthanasia, swiftly.

Originally posted here:

Steve Braunias: Why The Bachelorette has me thinking about euthanasia - New Zealand Herald

Assisted suicide reflects a failure of compassion on the part of society the Catholic bishops have warned in their submission to the Oireachtas committee reviewing legislation that, if passed, would legalise euthanasia.

Good palliative care not assisted suicide offers terminally-ill people the best possibility of achievinga dignified and peaceful end of life, the Church leaders said in their submission.

They insist that assisted suicide is a failure to respond to the challenge of caring for terminally-ill patients as they approach the end of their lives.

The bishops also pointed to the fact that the legislation as drafted would coerce the consciences of objecting healthcare providers in order to facilitate something they know to be gravely immoral and utterly incompatible with their vocation to heal.

This burdening of conscience is unnecessary, disproportionate and seriously unjust, the submission added.

In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, the bishops say they have been deeply moved by the level of generosity and tenderness that has been shown by so many healthcare professionals and the sacrifices that have been made by so many to protect those who are most at risk.

Alongside that positive manifestation of genuine compassion, we note, however, that some of the written protocols which relate to the difficult and essential task of prioritising critical care resources, are shot through with language which is essentially utilitarian in its assessment of the value of human life.

Whatever our prognosis and however limited our capacity, our value as persons is rooted in who we are rather than in our life-expectancy or our ability to reach certain standards of physical or mental performanceWe contend that, the committee would best serve humanity and the common good of society by recommending to the Oireachtas that this Bill should not be passed.

The submission which can be read in fullhere concludes by also recommending that the Oireachtas should consider whether there is adequate provision for palliative care and, if so, whether there is sufficient energy invested in making its availability known and its purpose understood.

Meanwhile,more than 2,700 healthcare professionals have signed an open letter stating that they are gravely concerned about the attempt to introduce assisted suicide.

Opponents of the bill, including the majority of geriatricians, argue that it stigmatises the elderly, sick and disabled.

The letter came as submissions close for the second stage of theDying with Dignity Billintroduced by People Before Profit TD Gino Kenny.

One of the open letters signatories, geriatrician and consultant physician Dr Kevin McCarroll, toldThe Irish Catholicthat the bill results from a prejudice against the elderly and those living with a disability.

There is an endemic prejudice about older people and unfortunately that leads into euthanasia becoming an option, he said.

Dr McCarrollargued that a lack of understanding of palliative care and a simplistic understanding of dignity are at the heart of the bill.

Ultimately, there is a lack of understanding of what can be done in modern medicine in order to palliate patients, he said.

The real aim should be living with dignity and optimising their care. Some of these people talk about pressure on resources there shouldnt be pressure on resources, there should be good quality care, Dr McCarroll insisted.

Related

More here:

Assisted suicide a 'failure to care for the terminally-ill' bishops warn in Oireachtas submission - The Irish Catholic

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

A bill to expand access to medical assistance in dying (MAiD) comes to a Senate vote no later than Feb 17. That leaves a bare working week for the House to consider what may be a number of Senate-approved amendments before a court-imposed deadline for final passage on Feb 26.

Bill C-7 is the Trudeau governments response to the 2019 Quebec Superior Court Truchon ruling named for Jean Truchon, one of its two disabled, but not dying, plaintiffs which struck down the current euthanasia laws natural death is reasonably foreseeable criterion as too narrow. It asserted the right to MAiD for any Canadian suffering what he or she considers irremediable mental or physical suffering. The government did not appeal the judgment, an indication of its willingness in fact eagerness to meet and, as evidenced in Bill C-7, go beyond Truchons request.

For example, C-7 eliminates the 10-day reflection period, and reduces the need for two witnesses to one (who may be part of the caretaking process). C-7 would therefore open the door to MAiD on demand for people struggling with chronic physical or mental disability a total of about six million Canadians, according to government stats.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This feature is viewed as particularly catastrophic by many disabled Canadians, as well it should be. The obvious message to the disabled is that our society puts a higher value on dying with dignity than living with dignity, even with greatly diminished independence. Those disabled who require a great deal of costly care will be reminded far more overtly than they already are and we know they are that MAiD is available to them. As well, those who have just become disabled through calamitous injury will be encouraged to consider MAiD when they are most psychologically vulnerable to the temptation.

Nobody is more sensitive to this inevitable consequence than David Shannon, who became quadriplegic following a spinal cord injury in a rugby scrum at age 18. Despite multiple surgeries and close brushes with death, he leads what he considers a full life. An Order of Ontario and Order of Canada recipient, Shannon obtained a law degree, and has acted as a Human Rights Commissioner. Shannon writes, Ive loved and been loved. My proudest accomplishment is that I lived. He asks, Why is there not the promotion to pursue ones autonomy?

In a December speech to the House of Commons on C-7 Conservative MP Tamara Jansen said the disabled have to know that there is a viable alternative to death.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Thats the moral dilemma in a nutshell. Without a viable alternative, one cannot say euthanasia is a freely made choice. In reality, disabled people often choose MAiD because the only other options are not viable.

Roger Foleys case, for example, continues to haunt me two years after I first wrote about him. Foley suffers from a neurodegenerative disease, cerebellar ataxia, that renders him unable to function independently. In his London hospital he has suffered food poisoning and substandard care serious enough to cause suicidal ideation. Foley has recorded being reminded that MAiD is an option. His only other choice is a forced discharge and dependence on contracted agencies that proved unreliable in the past. Foley wants a third option: assisted life with self-directed funding, which would cost 10-15 per cent of the daily $1,845 his London hospital charges him.

Why cant he have that? It would allow him to live in the community with dignity, safety and continuity of care instead of in the soulless sterility of a hospital. Foleys spirit and determination are indomitable, but one can see how easily others in his situation might request MAiD and, thanks to C-7, get it on the same day.

In 2016, Quebecer Archie Rolland, who suffered from advanced ALS and required specialized care chose MAiD when he was transferred against his will, for cost-saving reasons, to a facility with inadequately trained staff whose incompetence made his life a living hell. In the end, Rolland said, Its not the ALS thats killing me; its my fight for better care, for decent care.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Dr. Catherine Frazee gave heartbreaking testimony to the Senate hearings, citing Rollands case and that of Sean Tagert, also a prisoner of ALS. Tagert considered his quality of life good. He had shared custody of his adolescent son, while an elaborate technological system gave his days purpose. Denied the two additional daily hours of home care he required, Tagert was transferred to an institution far from his son, without the sophisticated technology that added critical value to his existence. So no viable alternative for Tagert. Is it any wonder he then chose MAiD?

A 2017 Journal of Ethics in Mental Health study of those who signed up for assisted suicide in Oregon concluded that pain and suffering were amongst the least cited reasons for choosing assisted death. Most significant were loss of autonomy, loss of self-control, feelings of being a burden, and, paramountly, fear of being alone. As anti-euthanasia physician Paul Saba writes in his eloquent new book, Made to Live, The euthanasia and assisted suicide mindset has been marketed by attacking peoples failing courage and preying on their fear that they will end their lives as a worthless human burden or worse, alone. Further, It is irresponsible to promote the myth that euthanasia and assisted suicide are never the result of severe external pressures, and that they are pure rational choices freely arrived at by citizens of a civilized and caring country.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Quebec Justice Christine Baudouin approved the right to MAiD (which he got) of the cerebral-palsy afflicted Jean Truchon, because He can no longer live on his own He says he has been dead since 2012. Why couldnt he live on his own? He couldnt afford to. In an August 2017 email to Jonathan Marchand, who suffers from muscular dystrophy and is trapped in my long-term care facility, but has long fought for the right of the disabled, including Jean Truchon, to live with adequate assistance at home, Truchon confided (my translation), I want to thank you for your interest in my cause. In response to your question concerning home care, I think that actually if there were services of 70 hours and more, I would have preferred to stay at home and possibly I would not have had the same wish to die.

Two more care hours daily might have saved Sean Tagerts and Jean Truchons lives. We should not be offering wider access to euthanasia until every Canadian that needs it has a truly viable option: access to excellent palliative care (only accessible to 30 per cent of us) or optimal life assistance for the disabled. But C-7 will, shamefully, make Canada one of the most MAiD-friendly countries in the world.

kaybarb@gmail.com

Twitter.com/@BarbaraRKay

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Posted Newsletter will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

See the article here:

Barbara Kay: Wider access to assisted dying in Canada will be catastrophic for the disabled - National Post

Taking advantage of the re-election of President Marcelo Rebelo for a second term as head of state, the Portuguese Parliament has just voted for the decriminalization of euthanasia in the country. A decision that comes as the health system is at the end of its rope due to the virulence of the COVID-19 epidemic, which has resulted in a record number of deaths since the start of 2021.

Do not speak of euthanasia but simply of a medically assisted anticipation of death, a soft way of designating the thing, voted on January 29, 2021 in a country at the head of which a fervent Catholic, in the person of Marcelo Rebelo, has just been re-elected.

The final version of the text, made public on January 26, and voted on three days later, provides that only national citizens legally residing in national territory, having made a free and informed decision, may have recourse to euthanasia. But in fact, it is much more a question of assisted suicide than euthanasia.

As the European Institute of Bioethics (IEB) notes, the new law does not require suffering to be caused by injury or disease, but only that it be concurrent with them. Likewise, it does not matter whether the patients suffering is able to be alleviated or not: suffering which is intolerable but which could be alleviated can thus pave the way for euthanasia.

Everything is based, in short, on a subjective assessment of the patient which must be validated by the medical profession: the door opens to all abuses, since the text even provides that psychological suffering is one of the causes of assisted suicide.

But thats not all: the existence of a terminal illness is not required for the law to apply, euthanasia being allowed for people with permanent injuries of extreme severity. Thus, a severely disabled person, physically or mentally, is eligible for euthanasia.

The law still provides for possible sanctions for health centers that fail to apply the new euthanasia provisions, even though conscientious objection is still recognized for health workers. This could pose formidable problems for Catholic clinics and hospitals.

After its adoption, the law will be sent to the Head of State, who will be responsible for promulgating it, and Portugal will then become the fourth country of the European Union (EU) to provide a legal framework for the physical elimination of the most vulnerable, after Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.

President Robelo does, however, have the option of vetoing the text, or sending it to the Constitutional Court for prior review. But the head of states veto could be overturned by a second MP vote.

The Portuguese Episcopal Conference (CEP) expressed sadness and indignation at the adoption of this law which violates the principle of the inviolability of human life enshrined in our fundamental law.

The CEP has appealed to protect life, especially when it is the most fragile, with all the means and in particular with access to palliative care, which the majority of the Portuguese population does not yet have.

As the IEB specifies, 70% of Portuguese patients likely to benefit from palliative care do not have access to it due to a lack of sufficiently trained staff. As it is well known that access to appropriate care provides relief to patients, who then no longer wish to be euthanized.

Read the original:

Portugal: Parliament Gives the Green Light to Assisted Suicide - FSSPX.News

ABOUT THE AUTHORGroundUp

GroundUp is a community news organisation. We focus on social justice stories in vulnerable communities. We want our ...

More by GroundUp >

(By Tania Broughton)

The last time the issue was raised in court in South Africa was in 2015 when lawyer Robert Stransham-Ford, who was dying, launched an urgent application in the Pretoria High Court for an order that a doctor be legally entitled to give him a lethal dose to end his life.

It was an individual application, not done in the public interest. Judge Hans Fabricius ruled in his favour, but unbeknown to the judge, Stansham-Ford died, naturally, two hours before the judgment.

The case went to the Supreme Court of Appeal, the State respondents fearing a precedent.

In essence, the SCA ruled that this was not the right matter to develop the common law and that Judge Fabriciuss ruling was moot and had no effect since Stansham-Ford had died already.

Now medical doctor Suzanne Walter, a palliative care specialist, and her patient Diethelm Harck, who have both been diagnosed with terminal diseases, are hoping to persuade Johannesburg High Court Judge Raylene Keightly to develop the law to allow both physician assisted suicide (PAS) (where the doctor prescribes and the patient self-administers) and physician assisted euthanasia (PAE) (where the doctor administers any medicine to end life).

The matter is set down for hearing on 22 February, and is expected to start with the evidence of Walter, who was diagnosed in February 2017 with Multiple Myeloma, and Harck, who was diagnosed in 2013 with Motor Neuron Disease.

In pleadings they both say they are suffering torturing symptoms. While it is not unlawful for them to commit suicide, they fear when the time is right, they will not be capable of swallowing pills or self-administering medication.

If a willing doctor were to help them, he or she would face criminal charges and would also face being struck off the roll by the Health Professionals Council of South Africa (HPCSA) for unprofessional conduct.

The two say that the law as it stands, and the attitude of the HPCSA, impinge on their right to dignity and right to live a life and choose the way they want to die.

They want Parliament to enact legislation to give effect to their rights to self-determination. In the meantime, they say, the court should rule that any mentally competent terminally ill person may approach the high court for an order allowing them to undergo either PAS or PAE.

In an affidavit filed with the court, Leech says public policy is rooted in the Christian ethic inherited via South Africas colonialist legal systems first of Roman-Dutch Law and then of English Law. So too is the HPCSAs rule against PAS and PAE.

Christian values are imposed directly and indirectly on people who do not necessarily share those values. I do not share these beliefs and neither does Dr Rowe.

And once it is shown that this is the case, the retention of this policy is plainly a limitation imposed on the right under the Constitution to freely exercise ones religious choice and freely believe or think what one chooses.

The decriminalisation of PAS and PAE does not in any way infringe on the rights of those who do not believe in PAS and PAE, based on their own religious and moral convictions.

The HPCSA and the State respondents, the Ministers of Health, Justice, and the National Director of Public Prosecutions are all opposing the application.

The HPCSA says doctors should be willing to obey its code of conduct which protects the public and is in the best interests of patients. It says the ban on euthanasia and assisted suicide does not offend the Constitution, and if it does, it is justified because it is necessary to protect the right to life and protect and preserve trust in the doctor-patient relationship.

Medicine and medical treatment ameliorates the pain and suffering of those who have or are in the terminal phase of a serious disease. Such treatments are available (to Walter and Harck) and are progressively being made available to all persons in South Africa.

Civic organisation Cause of Justice, also a friend of the court, is also opposing the application. The organisation says doctors must not be allowed to kill a person because no matter the loss of quality of life, each human life has inherent worth.

To depart from the principle will result in a cultural shift and a slippery slope towards acceptance of death as a solution to human pain and suffering. We must guard against this at all costs.

The Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) has been given permission by Judge Keightly to present evidence.

It supports the right to die with dignity.

Attorney Sheena Swemmer said the case raises important constitutional issues about the rights to human dignity, life, health and bodily autonomy. The Centre will present evidence from experts in Canada, the Netherlands and Oregon, in the USA, where assisted dying is legal.

These specialists are well-placed to outline the policies and checks and balances and provide first hand experience in implementing them. They are also able to speak more generally to the evolution of medical ethics and the nature of terminal illnesses and end of life care generally, she said.

After the evidence of Walters and Harck, the matter is expected to be adjourned until later this year.

Here is the original post:

Right to die: Doctor & patient head to court over euthanasia - All4Women

Indigenous leaders from across Canada say they have grave concerns about efforts to expand the availability of assisted suicide, warning it will have a lasting impact on our vulnerable populations.

In a letter entitled Indigenous Peoples Should Not Be Compelled to Provide or Facilitate Medical Assistance in Dying, 15 First Nations representatives and Indigenous health-care workers and leaders asked the government to recognize the value of Aboriginal healing practices and Canadians right not to be compelled to provide or facilitate in the provision of MAiD (medical assistance in dying).

The letter, addressed to senators, federal and provincial politicians, and health-care regulators, calls on the federal government to respect First Nations relationships with their communities and their right to determine how health services are delivered.

Signatories to the letter include Siksika Health Services CEO Tyler White, former Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick Graydon Nicholas, retired senator Nick Sibbeston of the Northwest Territories, Indigenous health and suicide prevention advisers, and elders.

Bill C-7 goes against many of our cultural values, belief systems, and sacred teachings, said the leaders. The view that MAiD is a dignified end for the terminally ill or those living with disabilities should not be forced on our peoples.

The leaders say the consultation process has been inadequate and has not taken into account the existing health disparities and social inequalities we face compared to non-Indigenous people.

The letter states Indigenous people are vulnerable to discrimination and coercion in the health-care system and, along with all Canadians, deserve protection from unsolicited counsel regarding MAiD.

Given our history with the negative consequences of colonialism and the involuntary imposition of cultural values and ideas, we believe that people should not be compelled to provide or facilitate in the provision of MAiD.

The Indigenous leaders and advocates (supported by the Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia) are among many groups voicing opposition to Bill C-7, which would eliminate the need for a persons death to be reasonability foreseeable to qualify for euthanasia. The legislation would also eliminate or ease other safeguards such as lowering the number of witnesses needed when someone consents to assisted suicide.

The House of Commons passed Bill C-7 by a two-to-one margin Dec. 10. It is now being debated in the Senate, which is expected to vote on it by Feb. 17.

On Tuesday senators voted to amend Bill C-7 to give the federal government 18 months to expand access to assisted suicide to people suffering solely from mental illnesses. More amendments are expected as debate continues.

The Senates legal and constitutional affairs committee heard from 81 witnesses during five days of hearings. It also received 86 written briefs from health-care professionals, faith groups, and organizations including the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, Canadian Physicians for Life, Cardus, Christian Legal Fellowship, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care. (All written briefs are available on the Senate website).

Canadas bishops have said the many perspectives shared at the Senate hearings reveal there is no consensus in Canada on expanding assisted suicide despite the governments claim to the contrary in order to justify the passing of Bill C-7.

As the Senate moves toward its final verdict on Bill C-7, some critics think the federal government should not change the existing law, which took effect in 2016, until a full and promised parliamentary review of the legislation is undertaken first.

Colleagues, how did we get to this point, where we are debating an overhaul of our entire regime a few short years after its enactment and before we have even undertaken a parliamentary review? asked Conservative Don Plett, the Opposition leader in the Senate.

We are here because of a lower court decision made by one judge, in one province, and because the government chose not to defend its own legislation.

Pro-life groups are urging Canadians to share their concerns with senators on the legal and constitutional affairs committee.

-With files from Canadian Catholic News

Continued here:

First Nations leaders say Bill C7 goes against their beliefs and values - Grandin Media - Grandin Media

Abortion. In vitro and other forms of assisted reproduction. Euthanasia. End-of-life decisions. They are among the most sensitive social issues of our age, and public policies in these areas generate heated moral argument and debate. So why cant our society agree about them?

According to O. Carter Snead, Notre Dame University law and politics professor and director of the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture, the reason is that we have lost any shared understanding of the meaning of human life.

O. Carter Snead (Courtesy image)

We have indeed forgotten who we are and what we owe to one another. We desperately need to remember, he has written.

Sneads new book, What It Means to be Human: The Case for the Body in Public Bioethics (Harvard, $39.95), was recently named one of The Wall Street Journals Top 10 books of 2020.

In it, Snead takes a deep look at the way our society looks at the human person and human life what he terms expressive individualism. This philosophy, he argues, reduces human persons to the sum of their feelings and desires, forgetting that we are living bodies with deep personal histories, and that we belong to one another in families and communities.

In an interview with Angelus, Snead explains how this way of thinking leads to policies that diminish the most vulnerable and encourage divisions in society. He also calls for a new anthropology and better laws that would lead to greater compassion for the weak and greater respect for the sanctity and dignity of human life.

Why write this book and why now?

Ive been involved in public bioethics for almost 20 years, including time as general counsel for President George W. Bushs Council on Bioethics. Ive always been struck by how frequently the law fails to protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us in the context of public bioethics.

Public bioethics began in scandals. Think of the Tuskegee scandal in which American researchers systematically deceived and exploited poor African American sharecroppers who were suffering from syphilis in Macon County, Alabama. Or of the research involving the intentional injection of Hepatitis into intellectually disabled children, chronicled by Henry Beecher in the New England Journal of Medicine. Or of the scandals involving research on newly born, just aborted, and imminently dying children in Scandinavia by American researchers.

So I started asking why it was that the law failed in this way, and what I came to was the view that our laws are rooted in a false and impoverished vision of what it means to be human and to flourish as a human being.

Laws dealing with abortion, assisted reproduction, end-of-life decision-making, euthanasia, and assisted suicide have a flattened, false vision of the person that excludes those who are not capable of high-level cognition, who cannot articulate their inner selves, and who cannot chart their own lifes course.

Its an anthropological vision that Robert Bellah, Charles Taylor, and others have referred to as expressive individualism, in which a person is conceived of as a singular, atomized individual unit abstracted from any social context such as connections to family, community, or country.

Expressive individuals are thought to flourish by their self-discovery of interior truths. They must chart their path accordingly and everything else relationships, the body, and nature are instruments to be harnessed in pursuit of that goal.

Excluded from that vision are the elderly, the disabled, the poor, the marginalized, and children including unborn and newborn.

A doctor draws blood from one of the Tuskegee test subjects in 1932. In his book, Snead argues that laws are failing the modern society's most vulnerable the same way they failed African Americans deceived during the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. (Wikimedia Commons)

In U.S. abortion jurisprudence the moral status of the developing human person is entirely determined by each individual pregnant woman. What are the dangers of building laws about the human person based on such a subjective approach?

In Roe v. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun framed the question of abortion on the anthropology of expressive individualism, even though he didnt acknowledge it. He described the context of abortion as a clash of strangers, in which the child in the womb was considered to be an invasive burden, a parasite, something subhuman and sub-personal.

Blackmun declined to take a position on the moral status of the unborn human being. But he did say the state may not recognize that child as a person, not just under the Constitution but under the domestic laws of the state. The state may not adopt, as he said, one vision of personhood or one definition of personhood.

So the unborn childs moral status is an entirely subjective matter, to be determined by the woman carrying the child. It is a declaration that that child is sub-personal, has no rights under the Constitution, and may not have rights under state or federal law insofar as that conflicts with the interests and desires of the woman.

But a mother and her unborn child are not strangers. They are related to each other, both biologically and in a deeper relational way. If you were to understand the crisis of abortion through that lens, the conclusion is very different.

If we were to reframe abortion law as a unique crisis involving a mother and her child, we the community and the government would be summoned to their aid. By atomizing the mother and the child, Blackmun sets up an adversarial relationship of strife that can only be resolved through violence. Thats precisely what he gave us: the right to abortion.

You also explore the lack of laws that regulate artificial reproductive technologies (ART) and argue that this area of bioethics is also neglectful of the body and relationships. What would a coherent legal approach to ART look like?

People can do almost whatever they want in the quest to create a biologically related child. I argue that laws should treat these practices in light of the parent-child relationship that they involve.

The relationship between parent and child has certain implications and creates unchosen obligations on the part of the parent to care for the child, a right which that child does not need to earn.

When we begin the process of conceiving a child and initiating a pregnancy and birth through ART, were not just talking about an individual that is undertaking a project. Were talking about a person that wants to be a parent and who is a parent once they begin to participate in this process.

The best interest of that child is to be welcomed and unconditionally loved and cared for throughout his/her life. That means the law has to offer inducements, protections, deterrents, and other behavior-shaping devices to make sure that people act as they should vis-a-vis the well-being and the best interests of a child.

The way we practice IVF right now involves sex selection, multiple gestations, and all kinds of techniques that can modify the childs body. It involves gestational surrogacy and the buying and selling of eggs or batches of living embryos. Thats not an endeavor thats about being a parent and rightly taking care of children.

We have legal frameworks and policies that are designed to protect the well-being of children in American family law. And we have mechanisms to help support and shape the behavior of parents to ensure their childrens well-being.

Thats precisely the kind of norm that we should draw upon when thinking not only about ART, but about abortion, too: We should think about abortion as the proposed use of lethal force on behalf of a mother on an innocent child.

(Shutterstock)

Many states are passing laws that allow people the freedom to choose the time, place, and manner of ones death. How can we make the case for protecting life from conception until natural death?

Expressive individualism doesnt take seriously what it means to be an embodied being that were fragile corruptible bodies in time, that were mutually dependent upon one another, and that were subject to natural limits, including disease, age, and death.

Because were embodied beings, we have to have certain kinds of support systems in our lives. We need what the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre calls networks of uncalculated giving and graceful receiving made up of people who are willing to make the good of others their own without seeking anything in return for it. The most obvious example of a network of uncalculated giving and graceful receiving is the family.

We all depend on these networks for survival, from our time as newborns, when we get sick, and as were nearing the end of our life. But we also depend on them to learn to care for others without expecting anything in return.

The law goes wrong when it fails to acknowledge this, especially when it comes to end-of-life decision-making. In places like California, which has legalized assisted suicide and promotes aggressive termination of life-sustaining measures for quality of life reasons, the law assumes that the highest good of the person whos sick is to assert his/her unencumbered will.

And so proponents say, Lets give them the freedom to kill themselves, to author the last chapter of their book in a way that coheres with their life story.

But anybody whos familiar with the clinical context in which these issues arise knows thats not reality. A person whos having suicidal ideation is almost always a person whos suffering from depression or from intractable suffering. And thats not a zone where autonomy is operating at its height thats a zone where a person needs help.

If you come to their aid and treat someones depression or pain the right way, studies show that a lot of suicidal ideation goes away.

Now, are there people, probably rich, maybe white or privileged, who can make the decision to end their lives in a full and free way? Maybe there are, but you dont make law and public policy for the richest or most privileged people. You make law and public policy to protect the weakest and most vulnerable.

In California, there are just too many of those people the elderly, the disabled, members of marginalized groups, minorities, and others who already dont have enough protection from inequalities and the health care system that we have.

These laws create a path of least resistance toward assisted suicide, especially for the marginalized. This is why the disability rights community largely opposes assisted suicide, and why Bishop Charles Blake and the Pentecostal African American community in California rose up against it.

When it comes to persuasion, its important for arguments to be sound, to be grounded in evidence and good reasoning. But even more than that, I always come back to Mother Teresa: you cant really persuade someone without loving them first, and not in a cynical or strategic way.

People who disagree with us wont hear us and we wont listen to them if we dont take that approach. Hopefully that will touch their hearts in a way that they will be open to listen.

But even if not, you still have to love them, not only because its the right thing to do, but because its the only way were going to actually have a conversation in which we hear one another and think about what is being said.

Originally posted here:

Could the fate of society depend on how we think about bodies? - Angelus News

The Bishops of Ireland are calling on political leaders to reject the so-called Dying with Dignity Bill 2020.

By Lisa Zengarini

The Irish Bishops have expressed their opposition to a new bill that provides for people with progressive terminal illness to decide the timing of their own death and seek assistance to end their lives under controlled and monitored circumstances. The so-called "Dying with Dignity Bill 2020" was introduced in the Oireachtas ireann (Irish Parliament) last year and is presently under scrutiny.

A long and detailed Submission presented this week to the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, the Council for Life and the Consultative Group on Bioethics of the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference (ICBC), points out that, although it does not use the term suicide the Bill is essentially about making provision for a person who wishes to end his or her life, to make a formal declaration to that effect and to seek medical assistance in doing so. The Bills proposals therefore run radically counter to the common good, the promotion of which is a particular responsibility of the State, the Council for Life and the Consultative Group on Bioethics state, warning that it would not only encourage the acceptance of assisted suicide, but significantly weaken the protections against the non-consensual killing of particularly vulnerable classes of persons.

Pointing out that that the Submission is rooted in the Churchs conviction that we have a moral responsibility to care for our neighbour according to the Gospel image of the Good Samaritan and it draws on the insights of Letter Samaritanus bonus, on the care of persons in the critical and terminal phases of life, the Irish Bishops note that within existing law and medical practice, good palliative care, by upholding absolute respect for human life and, at the same time, acknowledging human mortality, offers terminally ill people the best possibility of achieving the dignified and peaceful end of life, mentioned in the Bill. In this respect, the Submission further emphasizes that the proposed legislation fails to require care givers to provide adequate palliative care for the terminally ill person.

Bishops also object to the assumption underlying assisted suicide that there is such a thing as a life which is no longer worth living: This false assumption, they say, inevitably erodes the very basis of legal respect and protection, on a basis of equality, for every human life, regardless of age, disability, competence, or illness. According to the Irish Bishops, assisted suicide reflects a failure of compassion on the part of society that same compassion which is often presented to justify it.

Regarding the question of patient autonomy, by which a person has the right to be treated and cared for in a manner which reflects his or her own personal values, hopes and desires, the Submission reiterates that this autonomy is not absolute because as members of society our decisions can have serious implications for others.

It also warns that assisted suicide would place the terminally ill, the disabled, and other vulnerable patients under emotional and social pressure to end their own lives in order to spare others the burden of caring for them. Moreover, the Irish Bishops point out that the the logic of assisted suicide propels the widening of the practice towards extremely vulnerable groups and towards non-consensual killing, as confirmed by international data on Countries like Belgium, The Netherlands and Switzerland where assisted suicide/euthanasia were originally introduced on limited grounds.

Another issue raised by the Submission is conscientious objection. According to the Bishops, the provision of the Bill fails to acknowledge the right to freedom of conscience for healthcare professionals who judge any significant cooperation with suicide to be morally wrong, thus coercing the consciences of objecting healthcare providers in order to facilitate something they know to be gravely immoral and utterly incompatible with their vocation to heal.

In the light of all these considerations and of Pope Francis's words against the current socio-cultural context which is gradually eroding the awareness of what makes human life precious, the Irish bishops conclude recommending to the Oireachtas that the Bill should not be passed.

Original post:

Irish Bishops urge parliament to reject Dying with Dignity bill - Vatican News