Monthly Archives: February 2017

Stories of suffering are the currency use to validate assisted suicide (Getty)

A coalition of academics, journalists and celebrities is trying to convince Australians that legalisation is overdue. But were fighting back

The internationally renowned psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl experienced first hand the utter depravity of Auschwitz and Dachau. He knew the immense physical torment, psychological torture and spiritual desolation of those most inhuman of places. They were not called death camps for figurative effect.

Suicide was not unknown among those sent there to suffer grievously and die. Yet, strikingly, Frankl writes in his autobiographical study, Mans Search for Meaning, of the obligation fellow inmates accepted to frustrate such occurrences: A very strict camp ruling forbade any efforts to save a man who attempted suicide Therefore, it was all-important to prevent these attempts from occurring.

In naming the reason for this paramount calling, Frankl said: When a man finds that it is his destiny to suffer, he will have to accept his suffering as his task; his single and unique task His unique opportunity lies in the way in which he bears his burden.

As words such as compassion and dignity and care become (mis)appropriated by advocates for legalising euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS), I have often thought of Frankls enduring insight that human life is essentially a quest for meaning. Advocates of legalised EAS seem unable to grasp the deep meaning to be discovered by a person in that uniquely human project of embracing what Frankl called the wider cycles of life and death, of suffering and of dying.

It is realistic to acknowledge that some individuals, in the midst of their own mortal suffering, will seek out euthanasia, and that others will be willing to assist in that desperate act. God only knows and only God can judge the existential torment that might overwhelm a person, and their loved ones, as they suffer in dying. But when societies start to legislate for this, when they actively chose killing over living as the better way, then much will be lost of our common human project. Legalising EAS is a society giving up on its own people.

Unlike in Britain, where debate happens on a national level, the question of legalising EAS in Australia is a state-based issue. This is because healthcare is the responsibility of the eight states and territories, and not the single Commonwealth. Consequentially, there is a rolling debate on euthanasia across the country, depending on which parliament is considering legislative action at any particular time. The parliament of South Australia, for example, has recently defeated (by a single vote) the 13th attempt at legalising EAS. The State of Tasmania has had several goes at pushing through legalisation. A cross-party bill will be considered in the parliament of New South Wales this year, and parliamentary advocates in Queensland and Western Australia are testing the waters. This creates difficulties in rallying resources and people to counter such developments.

The major battleground, however, is Victoria. It is in this state that, for the first time, a government-sponsored bill will be tabled in the second half of this year, following a parliamentary inquirys recommendation to legalise EAS.

Who is supporting this move? There is a socially liberal disposition among many academics and the media, which is being encouraged by a handful of celebrity campaigners and supported by some professional bodies of medical practitioners.

EAS is spoken of by these advocates as a step forward, overdue and an idea whose time has come. It is presented as the morally decent thing to do, demanding of those who resist change the justification of their unenlightened position. Those who do not support EAS are quickly dismissed as either religiously motivated or doctrinaire.

It is telling that this most basic question of our common humanity is couched by EAS advocates in bygone sectarian images and language. Yet that is the nature of the debate in Australia: euthanasia is but one flank of a wider front in a battle for radical cultural change.

It is in the stories we tell that our humanity will be revealed. Personal stories of suffering are the currency used to validate the wielding of a blunt and crude legislative instrument over the lives of the dying. In telling only of ordeal and despair, advocates of EAS seek to privilege the reduction of a persons entire life to the end part only. The task is no longer how to support someone in the living of their life, but how to effectively bring about their death. In the legalising of EAS, dying is no longer viewed as a uniquely human dimension of living, but rather as a process to be brought about as proficiently as possible.

Might we not find a more truthful storytelling of our humanity in Viktor Frankl? And finally, he wrote, I spoke [to my comrades] of our sacrifice, which had meaning in every case. It was in the nature of this sacrifice that it should appear to be pointless in the normal world But in reality our sacrifice did have a meaning The purpose of my words was to find a full meaning in our life, then and there, in that hut and in that practically hopeless situation.

To legalise EAS is to give up on telling the story of the full meaning of our lives. This story is not always easily told, but it is a true story in need of listening ears.

The Most Rev Dr Peter Comensoli is Bishop of Broken Bay and the Australian Bishops Delegate on Euthanasia

Read more:

Euthanasia's march Down Under - Catholic Herald Online (blog)

'Patients have a changing journey of hope throughout their illnesses and their positions on euthanasia will be in a state of flux'

Philip Borg, David Muscat and Doreen Cassar of the Medical Council address MPs

Patients suffering can be cared for through palliative care, and therefore we believe that euthanasia cannot be consiered an option, council member David Muscat said. Patients have a changing journey of hope throughout their illnesses and their positions on euthanasia will be in a state of flux. It is the patient who is at his or her most vulnerable, and prudence must be the virtue that guides the doctors actions.

The Medical Council was invited to address a joint parliamentary committee debating euthanasia, that will now draft a report after hearing several witnesses. At the end of the session, government Whip Godfrey Farrugia and Opposition MP Robert Cutajar both confirmed that their respective parties are fully opposed to euthanasia.

The joint committee wrapped up its debate on euthanasia today

It is scary that there are some youths who already looking at euthanasia as a foregone concsuion, he said, referring to a policy paper on the subject by the law students association. We are in favour of life in all its forms and if we start deciding when people should be killed and when they shouldnt, then we will effectively be sending out a message that medical services are ultimately useless because sooner or later we will all reach that moment.

Fellow council member Doreen Cassar similarly warned that Malta risks going down a slippery slope if it legalises euthanasia, arguing that health professionals in other countries are being encouraged to look at euthanasia in terms of its economic benefit to the national health services.

I want to live, but I respect everyones opinions Bjorn Formosa

The MPs also had a brief telephone conversation with Bjorn Formosa, the 30-year-old ALS sufferer and activist who has frequently expressed his desire to remain alive for as long as possible.

Sometimes the problems are exacerbated because the patients dont have people to look after them, or they lack the necessary health structures or finances to treat their illnesses. For example, ALS patients have to spend over 100,000 a year in treatment, he said.

Godfrey Farrugia questioned whether he believes the state should fork out the costs for ALS treatment, noting that it already pays 300,000 a year to store extremely rare blood types.

I am not privy to the health ministrys budget, but of course it would be ideal and easier if treatment was paid for by the state, Formosa responded.

The Institute of Maltese Journalists also gave a presentation, with its chairman Karl Wright warning that journalists should avoid sensationalising stories related to euthansaia and suicide. TVM broadcaster Norma Saliba said that journalists should strive to educate the public over the facts on euthanasia and seek the opinions.

The Law Students Association (GHSL) presented a policy paper, outlining its view on how euthanasia should be legalised without coming out in favour or against it. The paper included a survey amongst 313 university students, in which 69% said they agreed with euthanasia.

See the original post here:

Medical Council strikes out against euthanasia: 'Patients' positions in a state of flux' - MaltaToday

By Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article written last week by Janene Pieters and published in the NL Times reports

A group of 220 Dutch doctors took out an advertisement in NRC [a daily evening newspaper] on Friday to show that they are against granting euthanasia to advanced dementia patients. The doctors believe its wrong to give euthanasia based on a statement which the patient can no longer confirm.

Our moral reluctance to end the life of a defenseless human being is too big, the ad reads. Among the signers are also doctors specialized in helping patients die.

According to the article, there have been three cases of people with advanced dementia who died by euthanasia since December 2015.

Pieters explained

The rules for euthanasia for elderly people with dementia were adjusted in December 2015. The Ministries of Public Health and Security and Justice changed the euthanasia guidelines to state that euthanasia can be granted to advanced dementia patients if they made a written declaration with this wish while they were still lucid.

Before this adaption, a patient had to express the desire for death himself. But this is no longer required.

Recently a Netherlands euthanasia review committee decided that the doctor of a woman with dementia, who had previously stated in an advanced directive that she wanted euthanasia, should not have put a sedative in her coffee and should not have had her family hold her down while he lethally injected her.

But the committee also stated that the forced euthanasia was done in good faith.

Editors note. This appeared on Mr. Schadenbergs blog and is reposted with permission.

Read more from the original source:

220 Dutch doctors take out ad to oppose euthanasia for patients with dementia - National Right to Life News

Another company has issued a voluntary recall after a drug sometimes used to euthanize pets was found in one of its batches.

Against the Grain pet food announced the recall of one lot of their Pulled Beef with Gravy dinner for dogs that was manufactured and distributed in 2015.

Pentobarbital, a drug that is often used to euthanize pets, was found in lot number 2415E01ATB12 (the second half of the UPC code is 80001, which can be found on the back of the product label) with an expiration date of December 2019.

If a pet consumes Pentobarbital, they could experience side effects like dizziness, excitement, nausea, inability to stand and coma. In some occasions, it could lead to death.

No complaints have been filed to Against the Grain about the food.

Earlier this month, Evanger's issued a similar voluntary recall after Pentobarbital was found in a batch of their food. A Washington woman said Evanger's Hunk of Beef sickened her pugs, even killing one of them.

Original post:

Another company issues recall after euthanasia drug found in dog food - KATU