Category Archives: Euthanasia

New Zealanders will take part in a world-leading double referendum next year when they vote in the countrys general election. In addition to electing a new government, one referendum question will ask about the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use, and the other will ask whether euthanasia should be legalised in certain circumstances.

Its going to be messy, emotional, and polarised. Theres already a lot of anxiety and negativity about the referendums across the political spectrum. Much of this is influenced by the ongoing fallout from the Brexit referendum, as well as a general fear of conservative populism.

On the left, many are worried that voters are not up to the task of these difficult questions, and that interest groups including social conservatives and churches will dominate the campaign. Theres also concern about misinformation and ignorance affecting the outcome.

The justice minister, Andrew Little, said this week that: The chances it will be a reasonably ugly election are reasonably high due to clearly egregiously factually incorrect statements. Hes therefore ordered his ministry to set up a unit to deal with misinformation on the referendum debates. And hes committed to fighting it himself, saying: I will do the best I can to make people alert to the possibility that half of what you might see on social media might be bullshit.

On the right, Nationals leader, Simon Bridges, is warning that the cannabis referendum will amount to New Zealands own Brexit. He argues the exercise has been badly set up, which will lead to uncertainty about the results.

All of these concerns have validity, even if they are somewhat over-egged. There will be plenty of problems with the referendums and the associated campaigns. Its true that the formulation of the referendums leaves a lot to be desired.

For example, only the euthanasia question is binding. If passed, the vote would allow terminally ill people with less than six months to live to choose assisted dying if approved by two doctors. The legalisation of cannabis for recreational purposes question, in contrast, will only provide an indicative vote. The public are expected to trust the politicians to sort out significant details of the legalisation after the vote, leaving the possibility of voter betrayal or confusion. Cannabis was legalised for medicinal purposes in 2018.

But thats what politics is all about an open contest of ideas, including bad ones. A referendum involves some of the messiest parts of democracy. But progressing difficult social change is best when it takes the people along with it, giving them the ultimate say.

The cannabis and euthanasia votes should also be celebrated as a chance for the New Zealand public to lead the world no other country has dealt with these issues via a full public referendum. The two issues have been pushed to referendum by the minor parties in the Labour-led coalition government. The Greens have negotiated for the cannabis question, and the populist New Zealand First party have demanded that a euthanasia decision go to voters. NZ First also favours abortion liberalisation being put to the public vote, too.

Theres been something of a backlash among the commentariat against the public being tasked with deciding these important issues. Many have lamented that a perhaps less informed electorate are doing the job that should rightfully be done by parliamentarians.

Cabinet minister Willie Jackson recently said I dont believe in referendums We are put there to make decisions if you dont like us, vote us out every three years.

And he argued that progressive accomplishments, such as same-sex marriage, homosexual law reform, abortion, womens rights would all have been lost if the public had been given the vote on them.

Thats why many politicians and pundits argue issues like these should be decided by conscience votes in parliament, in which individual MPs get to make their own personal decisions unencumbered by party lines. For the democratically minded, its hard to see how this is superior, as this process is simply involves an elite-driven outcome based on the peculiarities of unpredictable MPs, who cant generally be held to account for their vote.

This desire for MPs to take control generally reflects an elitist mood that seems to be growing in democracies around the world at the moment one that says the public are not to be trusted with too much power.

And yet, for every populist elected, there are examples of more socially progressive advances. Even in traditionally conservative Ireland, for example, theres now been a string of referendums with enlightened results: same-sex marriage in 2015, abortion and blasphemy law reform in 2018, and then divorce law modernisation this year. And in 2020, New Zealand might join this socially liberal trend.

Referendums should be celebrated for resolving difficult and divisive issues, as well as for their ability to draw the public into political decision-making and debate.

Putting questions to the public means that a much bigger societal debate occurs, and ultimately the decisions made have greater legitimately and endurance.

In an age of increasing suspicion of elites, as well as a growing public discontent with democracy, more devolution of power to voters on key issues is surely the way forward.

Bryce Edwards is a senior associate at the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies at Victoria University, Wellington

Read more here:

New Zealand's euthanasia and cannabis referendums will rightly give power to the people - The Guardian

December 18, 2019 (Euthanasia Prevention Coalition) Canada's Justice Minister, David Lametti, was reported in aRadio Canada interviewas considering extending euthanasia to teenagers and people who are incompetent but made a previous request.

Lametti, who voted against Bill C-14 in 2016 because it didn't go far enough, has been ordered byPrime Minister Trudeau to expand Canada's euthanasia law.

All of this is based on the fact that theLiberal government did not appealaQubec court decision that struck downthe section of Canada's euthanasia law requiring that a person's "natural death must be reasonably foreseeable."

The Liberal government double speak is particularly concerning. Last Spring the government announced that no changes will be made to the law until after the government completed a five year review, that would begin in June 2020.What is the purpose of a five year review if the government eliminates the restrictions in the law previous to the consultation?

Christian Nol reporting for Radio Canada explains what Lametti said in the interview (Google translated):

... the Minister of Justice said he was juggling the idea of allowing people who suffer from a neurodegenerative disease, such as Parkinson's disease, to seek medical aid in dying early, before being unable to express their consent.

The possibility that seriously ill young people between the ages of 14 and 17 may seek medical assistance in dying, with psychological tags in place, is also being considered.

We will have to see if we have a strong consensus. The Canadian and Quebec societies of 2019 are not the same as in 2015. There is an evolution, a greater acceptance of assisted dying in Canada.

Lametti did recognize that he could simply amend the law based on the Quebec court decision.Radio Canada reported:

The other option on the table is to settle the question of reasonably foreseeable death in time for March 11, while keeping an in-depth review of the law for this summer. The government had promised to review the law every five years, a deadline that arrives in June.

The Globe and Mail suggested a more cautious approach in itsDecember 16 editorial. It suggested that legislation require that before MAiD is done, all other options be tried first and that the government assure better services for people with chronic conditions that cause suffering. The Globe and Mail editorial concluded:

But Ottawa should not just throw up its hands and enforce no precautions. That could tilt the balance too far in the other direction. Making access to assisted death too difficult is undesirable, but so is making it too easy.

The federal government announced that there would be a five year review of the euthanasia law beginning in June 2020 and yet it is now considering amending the legislation before the review is done.

Canada's euthanasia law does not provide oversight and control. EPC would like the government to step back and agree to an honest analysis of what is the actual happening with euthanasia in Canada.

Published with permission from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Follow this link:

After promising 5-year review, Trudeau govt instead moves to expand euthanasia now - Lifesite

Submitted by the Animal Protection Society of Friday Harbor

Many of you in the community know about Cowboy, but for those who dont, he has been a long-term resident at the Animal Protection Society of Friday Harbor. Cowboys journey home has taken almost two years. He was originally brought in as a stray, with no information about his history, to a shelter in Modesto, California, where shortly after he was scheduled to be euthanized. Around this time, Lead and Love Dog Rescue in Bend, Oregon, saved over 10 dogs from euthanasia at that shelter, Cowboy being one of them. On March 27, 2018, he was transferred to APS-FH through connections with Becky Pohlad, one of our Advisory Board members. Cowboy has been at our shelter since. Although he had been labeled an intimidating dog, everyone who took the time to get to know Cowboy couldnt understand why such a wonderful dog was overlooked time and time again. Eventually, he became an honorary staff member and won many hearts along the way, but none-the-less he sat. And waited.

Little did we know Cowboy had a secret admirer all along, and it started with a kiss. Cowboy was out on a walk one day and was introduced to Susan Mazzarella, APS-FH board president. When she put her hand out to let him smell her, he reciprocated with a gentle lick. After that she was a solid member of his fan club. Time went by, and soon Susan was ready to add to her fur family. She immediately turned to Cowboy. They started things off slowly, with gentle walks and many treats, which eventually led to an overnight stay. Cowboy never came back from that overnight visit. Susans family welcomed him in with warm arms, cozy couches and lots of love. The adoption was made official, and Cowboy had found his perfect home just in time for the holidays.

The APS-FH team would like to thank everyone who believed in Cowboy and provided the support to make his holiday wish come true.

Our mission is to provide compassionate care and brighter futures for homeless animals, with a commitment to providing a safe haven for homeless and lost animals; reuniting lost pets with their owners; placing animals in our care into qualified and loving homes; reducing pet overpopulation through spay/neuter education and assistance; advising and advocating for the protection of animals; networking with other shelters and pet rescue groups impacted by overcrowding or natural disasters to decrease euthanasia rates to save lives; advocating for animal welfare through education, outreach and assistance; promoting a stronger sense of the animal-human bond; and always adhering to our no-kill philosophy for adoptable animals.

Link:

Home for the Holdiays - Journal of the San Juan Islands

Updated December 15, 2019 15:11:40

Laura Henkel is about to embark on the last journey of her life.

While pain and exhaustion have become an inescapable part of this 90-year-old's life, she has not been diagnosed with a terminal illness.

"I think old age is a terminal illness because you can't cure it like a disease, you can't mend it like a broken bone," she said.

"It's only going to get worse and there's nothing you can do about it.

"I don't want to put my family through the terrible experience that I had with my own mother, where she suffered for 15 years with dementia and loss of dignity.

"I vowed 40 years ago that I would not die like that."

Voluntary assisted dying in Australia is not an option for Ms Henkel.

While Victoria and Western Australia have passed assisted dying laws, they only apply under a strict set of circumstances.

In both states, applicants must be terminally ill with intolerable pain, and likely to die within six months, or 12 months for neurodegenerative diseases.

It is illegal in all other states and territories.

Determined to end her life on her own terms, Ms Henkel is packing her bags for Switzerland.

"I want to end my life with dignity," she said.

"I would far rather stay here in my home and die here in my home with my family around me, but here in New South Wales I'm not allowed to. I'm not allowed to die."

Ms Henkel's daughter, Cathy Henkel, and granddaughter, Sam Lara, are supporting her decision and will be by her side when she dies.

"Well, of course it conflicts when your mum tells you she wants to die," Cathy Henkel said.

"But she very quickly explained to me that her quality of life had declined to such a degree, and she told me about her own mother and not wanting to end up like her, and I could see that daily suffering."

Ms Henkel has asked her filmmaker daughter and granddaughter to document her euthanasia journey.

It is a challenging task for a loved one grappling with her grandmother's decision.

"I feel a million emotions on an hourly basis," Ms Lara said.

"But in the long-term, I think the upsides to this choice are definitely going to outweigh the challenges.

"The best aspects of Laura's choice have definitely been the chance to say goodbye.

"We've been able to do a lot of bucket-list things."

The three generations of women hope the film will start a dialogue in Australia about the laws around voluntary assisted dying.

"What Laura is doing is forcing us to talk about death and to talk about the end of life for the elderly and what options they have and what options they don't have," Ms Lara said.

"It is incredibly challenging, and I know because I've lived it.

"It is going to bring up a lot of emotion and conflict in people [but] I don't know if that's necessarily a bad thing."

While Ms Henkel has made her position clear, the issue of voluntary assisted dying in Australia is a complex and often divisive issue.

Margaret Sommerville is a professor of bioethics at the Catholic University of Notre Dame in Sydney.

"People believe it's their right, it's their decision and this is what they want to do, but we also have to think about what impact would that have in our society in general," Professor Somerville said.

"We know that people who feel like that, when they get fully adequate care and support, a very large number of them change their mind.

"This is even people who have asked for and consented to euthanasia in jurisdictions where it's legal."

The Australian Medical Association's statement position is that doctors should not be involved in ending a person's life.

It recognises the broad range of views within the medical profession and the broader community, but says laws relating to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are, "ultimately a matter for society and government".

For Laura Henkel, the fear of losing autonomy through a stroke or dementia outweighs the fear of death.

"I don't want to die in hospital, [and] I don't want to die in an old-age home," she said.

"A sportsman is allowed to say, 'Look, I've had enough'. You may say, 'Oh, but he can still play beautifully why does he want to retire?' But he suddenly feels he's had enough, so you accept that, so why not accept that life is the same thing?

"Just about everybody says, 'I would like to die in my sleep', and that's precisely what I'm going to do.

"I'm going to go to sleep, and then I will die."

Topics:aged-care,health-policy,euthanasia,death,pain,community-and-society,ballina-2478,lismore-2480,switzerland

First posted December 15, 2019 09:11:44

Visit link:

With voluntary assisted dying not an option, Laura Henkel is heading to Switzerland to 'die with dignity' - ABC News

Irish pro-lifers have been embattled ever since the repeal of the Eighth Amendment last year, which legalized abortion. Now pro-lifers in the country are readying themselves for a fight on a new life issue, as a poll by the Journal shows that three in five support legalizing euthanasia.

President of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) lamentedthe creeping erosion of pro-life protections in the Republic of Ireland:We have witnessed dreadful changes in Ireland in recent years in relation to abortion. Now we are seeing a further threat to innocent lives looming on the horizon. We need to combat these threats by exposing the reality of assisted suicide. Evidence from around the world shows that the so-called right to die quickly becomes the duty to die.

The recent media spotlight on euthanasia comes from Vicky Phelan, who is known in Ireland for her exposure of massive deficiencies in a government cervical cancer screening program. Because of these mistakes, she missed a critical diagnosis window and is currently suffering from terminal cervical cancer. Now, 45-year-old Phelan has emerged as the latest face of the euthanasia movement in the country. According to the Journal, the mother of two told the Irish Mail on Sunday that she would avail herself of the procedure, and that she would campaign for others who want it. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are currently illegal in Ireland.

READ:Three reasons a Dutch ethicist changed his mind about assisted suicide

As reported by Extra.ie, Phelan explained that she believes she only has two years left to live. I would be pro-euthanasia, definitely. I would hate to be in a position where I was in a lot of pain or lingering, as can happen a lot, that people are waiting for four or five days for somebody to die, she said. She portrayed terminal illness as intolerable for both family and patient: Its terrible for the patient. Its terrible for the family having to sit and watch their loved one [dying in pain]. Its not a nice sight to see people when theyre dying.

Unfortunately, Phelan isnt a minority here. According to a poll conducted by the Journal, 63% are in favor of assisted suicide or euthanasia, making it the next major pro-life target in Ireland. Just 16% reported they would not support the legalization of euthanasia in Ireland.

What Phelan and supporters dont understand is that legalizing euthanasia always ends up hurting societys most vulnerable. In countries like The Netherlands, euthanasia legalization nearly two decades ago initially began with hard cases like Phelans in mind. But the slippery slope of legalizing euthanasia has led to the endangerment of those with mental illness, the elderly, and even children. Its why former euthanasia activists like Dutch ethicist Theo Boer so ardently warns other countries to avoid going down this path.

A similar case before the high court failed in 2013, but the conversation has since re-emerged and with major countries like New Zealand putting it on the table, it could force the issue in Ireland.

Like Live Action News on Facebookfor more pro-life news and commentary!

Continue reading here:

Pro-lifers gear up for fight against legalization of euthanasia in Ireland - Live Action News

Fr. Prudencio Operiano calls on the public to honor the sanctity of life during the fourth day of Misa de Gallo on Thursday, December 19, 2019, at the National Shrine of Saint Joseph in Mandaue City. CDND Photo / Raul Tabanao

MANDAUE CITY, Cebu Thursday mornings homily on the fourth day of Misa de Gallo here centered on the Catholic Churchs teachings against suicide, abortion, and euthanasia or mercy killing.

Fr. Prudencio Operiano of the National Shrine of Saint Joseph in Mandaue City reminded parishioners on Thursday, December 19, that taking ones life in any way is a sin because it disregards the sanctity of human life.

Ang kinabuhi gikan sa Ginoo. Ang kinabuhi sagrado ug sumala pa ni (Life comes from God. It is sacred and according to) Pope Saint John Paul II: All stages of life, from womb to the tomb, is sacred,' Operiano said.

While it is the mothers who carry unborn children, Operiano said their lives still belong to God.

The priest also emphasized that ending ones life is also a sin.

Tungod kay sagrado ang kinabuhi sa tawo, angay kining tahuron. Dako kaayong sala ang paghikog. Dako kaayong sala ang pag-abort o ang pagkuha sa kinabuhi sa bata,Operiano said.

(Because life is sacred, it must be respected. Its a mortal sin to commit suicide. Its a mortal sin to abort or end the life of a child.)

Operiano also called on families to refuse to perform euthanasia or mercy killing for their sick family members.

The priest also called on parishioners to give value to every life in the society regardless of economic status and other social standards.

As Christmas Day draws near, Operiano said one of the greatest blessings a person could receive is the guidance to see how valuable other persons are.

Makakakita gani ta sa atong silingan nga tawo, atong hinumduman nga siya angay respetohan, angay higugmaon, tabangan ug kaluy-an, Operiano said.

(When we see our neighbors as fellow men, let us remember that he deserves respect, love, help and compassion.) / celr

Read Next

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

See the rest here:

Priest reminds public: 'Honor the sanctity of life' - INQUIRER.net

The government of the Canadian province of Qubec is considering allowing doctors to euthanize people suffering from Alzheimer's, dementia, and other disease where the patient is unable to provide their consent.

According to LifeSiteNews, a Canadian health minister, Danielle McCann, said at a press conference earlier this month that the recommendation to allow the practice of euthanizing patients without their consent came from an "expert panel" that spent 18 months studying the issue.

However, McCann says that Qubec will launch its own non-partisan public consultation process before deciding whether to allow the practice.

"We have heard the the heartfelt appeal of Quebecers who are suffering and calling for a widening of the rules," McCann said, the Montreal Gazette reported. "Qubec society is evolving on this sensitive issue and we have a moral duty to respond. all together."

The advance assisted death directed would have to be authorized by the patient while they are still mentally able to decide. However, family members who disagree with their loved one's decision would "not have a veto," a committee member said at the meeting. Opponents of the measure also say that if someone were to change their mind, they could have no way of stopping their own death.

In the event a person suffers from a disease where they could lose their decision-making abilities, the Canadian panel recommended that patients formally designate a third party while they are still mentally capacitated who would inform doctors of the existence of a prior consent to be euthanized. The third party authorization would be kept in a government registry.

That third party would represent the patient should they lose their faculties due to diseases like Alzheimer's or dementia, but the final decision to euthanize the patient would rest in the hands of a physician.

The Gazette noted that a person in good health would be ineligible for requesting in advance to be euthanized should they were to suffer an unforeseen health incident, such as a heart attack or a car accident that leaves them paralyzed.

Under Qubec's current law, residents can only be euthanized if they meet all of the following criteria, according to LifeSiteNews:

McCann said the new measure gives patients "the freedom to decide and we do this while respecting their will, values and dignity."

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, disagreed and warned that the new policy may result in people being killed against their will.

"This is absolutely crazy, because it will allow euthanasia of someone who may never have wanted it, who might have in fear in an earlier state felt this was what they wanted, and when the time comes, they lose their right to change their mind," he told LifeSiteNews.

Continue reading here:

New policy could allow doctors to euthanize Alzheimer's patients without their active consent - TheBlaze

Its a sunny autumn morning in the Jordaan, Amsterdams chocolate-boxiest district. Over tea in a modishly renovated maisonette, a voluble Australian 72year-0ld wearing round glasses and fashionable denim is regaling me with his new-year plans, which involve an elegant gas chamber stationed at a secret location in Switzerland and a happily dead body.

My hosts name is Philip Nitschke and hes invented a machine called Sarco. Short for sarcophagus, the slick, spaceship-like pod has a seat for one passenger en-route to the afterlife. It uses nitrogen to enact a pain-free, peaceful death from inert-gas asphyxiation at the touch of a button. With the help of his wife and colleague, the writer and lawyer Dr Fiona Stewart, Nitschke is ushering the death-on-demand movement towards a dramatic new milestone and their enthusiasm is palpable.

Weve got a number of people lined up already, actually, says Nitschke, whose unique CV (and previous occupation as a registered physician) has earned him the nickname Dr Death. The front-runner in the one-way journey to Switzerland is a New Zealander whom Nitschke has known for years. Shes not terminally ill, but is becoming increasingly disabled by macular degeneration something she finds intolerable after a lifetime of reading for pleasure. Shes also got an ideological, philosophical supportive commitment to the idea, explains Nitschke. Shes coming from a long way because she likes the concept and she sees it as the future.

Whether that future is utopian or dystopian depends on your perspective. Nitschke has twice been nominated for Australian of the Year for his work with Exit International, the end-of-life choices information and advocacy organisation he founded in 1997; activities include the publication of The Peaceful Pill, a continuously updated directory of information on how to end it all. But over the past two decades, members of the medical, psychiatric and even the pro-voluntary euthanasia communities have come to reject his brand of increasingly strident some say extreme advocacy for what he terms rational suicide: an individuals inalienable right to die in a manner of their choosing. His one time ally, the former UN medical director Michael Irwin, has branded him totally irresponsible for telling people how to obtain drugs that could help them end their own lives. And in August 2019 the grieving daughter of a man who took his life after contact with Exit International denounced Nitschke, saying the information you put out kills people who are not in a rational state of mind to make that decision.

Nitschke says he doesnt want to make a load of money from it, but theres Silicon Valley swagger in his latest projects ambition to disrupt the business of elective death through technology. The Sarco concept came to Nitschke while watching "Soylent Green", a 1970s sci-fi movie in which Charlton Heston, disgusted by a world ravaged by global warming, seeks euthanasia in the serenity of a customised government clinic. Its set in 2022. Eventually, Nitschke wants the 3D-printed Sarco to be accessible on demand to anyone, anywhere a sort of cosmic Uber into the great beyond. But for now, hes taking his invention to Switzerland because its the only jurisdiction worldwide in which, so long as theres no malicious purpose, assistance in a suicide is not a crime.

Nitschke and Stewart are much jollier than youd expect the right-to-die movements only power couple to be. Theyre full of well joie de vivre and arch banter about everything from Brexit to the roadworks that have denuded the front of their home of a beloved creeper. If its not dead, boy is it doing a bloody good impression of being dead, observes Nitschke, correctly. Stewart is at the kitchen table, processing applications from her laptop, and asking correspondents for proof of age. Officially, membership to Exit is restricted to the over 50s, and its members are mostly in jurisdictions where neither assisted suicide nor euthanasia are available which is to say, most of the countries in the world. Im the door bitch, she jokes.

Stewart had been a pro-choice advocate in Australia before meeting Nitschke at a festival of ideas in Brisbane in 2001.Later, she would be horrified by the state of his nascent organisation. She said, This is a mess youre not paying enough tax, your business is a shambles and it needs proper management. says Nitschke. She turned the whole thing around. I cant do much without her.

One of those opposed to Sarco is Paul Biegler, adjunct research fellow at the Monash Bioethics Centre in Victoria. You can make an argument that people have got a right to control the time of their death, he tells me over Skype, later. You could make an argument that rational suicide in the absence of a terminal illness is a defensible option for some people. But it really is a quantum leap to go from saying that people have a right to choose the time and nature of their dying to providing a mechanism for that to happen.

A comprehensive assessment of worldwide data in 2016 showed that, in areas where euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide are legal, 0.3-4.6% of deaths result from them, with more than 70% of cases involving patients with cancer. The report described these numbers as an indication that despite growing legalisation the practice remains rare. The Netherlands relatively permissive law stipulates that to qualify for either procedure an applicant must be shown to be experiencing unbearable suffering from which there is no prospect of recovery with no reasonable alternatives available to end that suffering. It has been criticised for not making a distinction between physical and mental distress, which could, in theory, justify euthanasia for psychiatric patients. Switzerlands law is looser foreigners can travel there and legally access physician-assisted suicide. The only two legal requirements a candidate is required to satisfy are the intention to end their life and soundness of mind. The general approach [for the latter] has been to get a ticket of approval from a psychiatrist, notes Nitschke.

The Sarco project bore fruit at the same time as subtle legal developments in Switzerland. Although theres nothing in Swiss law to state that a person must be terminally ill to be eligible for assisted suicide, in practice, says Nitschke, groups such as Dignitas have chosen to further medicalise the legislation, he says, because the only way they could get a doctor to prescribe [the lethal dose of the barbiturate] Nembutal was for the person to say they were sick.

This, he thinks, is specious and evidence of the medical professions creeping paternalism, which he finds abhorrent. [Doctors are] always there, setting themselves up as the gatekeepers when it comes to areas of human endeavour that they should have no role in because when you medicalise something youve got to have a medical controller, he says.

The great irony of Nitschkes career, in his view, is that he seems to spend as much time arguing with people on my own side as he does weathering the rebukes of the born again Christians. He recalls being denounced by Dignity in Dying (in its former incarnation as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) after he was detained, then released, by authorities at Heathrow airport on his way to host Exit workshops in the UK whilst carrying equipment for testing the safety of Nembutal, the barbiturate most often used for lethal injections, which terminally ill individuals were starting to obtain online from questionable sources.

They came out and said I was a danger to the movement. I found that annoying but I suppose what we were seeing was a difference in philosophy. I was telling people: get your own drugs, test your own drugs, be in control; they were saying: change the law, convince the politicians...

Its undeniable that Nitschkes campaigns have exhibited a certain PR-savvy pizzazz. He is the originator, no less, of the euthanasia flash mob, which took place to celebrate his 70th birthday and 20 years of Exit International (soundtrack: Bon Jovis "Its My Life", naturally). When he announced plans for Sarco, it was dismissed by some, says Nitschke, as a stunt, or some virtual creation in someones mind that didnt have any prospect of physical reality.

I can attest that the machine exists, having had the singular experience of reclining on a prototype at Nitschkes workshop on an industrial estate in Hillegom, South Holland, amidst the incongruous spring blaze of the tulip fields. Plus, scratch the surface of his provocative patter and theres a person a patient lurking behind each of his convictions.

Even aged 18, Nitschke demonstrated a flair for taking the law into his own hands after thieves stole the radio from his car, which was parked outside a dance. The police told him it was too small an affair to pursue so Nitschke spent two Saturday nights hiding in the boot with a .22 caliberrifle waiting for the thief to return. They did, and Nitschke marched them to a telephone and called the police, who arrested the thief and retrieved the stolen transistor.You should solve your own problems is how Id put it, says Nitschke.

Nitschke studied physics at the University of Adelaide before heading to the Northern Territory to work as an Aboriginal land-rights activist. Having studied for his medical degree with, he says, the intention of curing himself of hypochondria, in 1996 he became the first doctor in the world to administer a legal, lethal voluntary injection under the short-lived Rights of the Terminally Ill Act which, astonishingly, made the statute books in the Northern Territory by one vote.

Suddenly we had a law which meant terminally ill people could legally seek help from a doctor to die, he recalls. And when a patient came to me who was eligible, because he was dying of prostate cancer, as much as I was passionate about his right to die, I didnt want to be the one to do it, you know, so I built a machine that would downgrade euthanasia into assisted suicide. I would load it up and put the needle in the vein, all that stuff, but he was the one pressing the button.

That patients name was Bob Dent and Nitschkes invention, the Deliverance Machine listed on the Wikipedia page for notable euthanasia devices in history and now on display in Londons Science Museum lasted eight months and ended the lives of three more people before the law was overturned and assisting in a suicide became a serious crime again.

The other important aspect of the Deliverance and this certainly doesnt apply to Sarco was that it meant the user was able to die in his wifes arms, says Nitschke. The machine didnt take up much space so he was able to press the button, push the machine away and hold his wife, his usually robust voice crackles. I was on the other side of the room, he says.

Initially, Nitschke ran Exit workshops exclusively for the terminally ill. His self-described big, blinding road to Damascus change came courtesy of a French academic from Perth named Lisette Nigot, whom Nitschke met in 1999 when she was 76. She had no desire to live to see 80, and repeatedly approached Nitschke asking for information about suicide drugs.

I always said to her, thats ridiculous: youre not sick, go on a world cruise or write a book. And one day she said: Mind your own business. I make this decision you run around imposing your template on other people of what a life worth living is and dole out your information only to those people you think meet your criteria. Youre the worst example of insufferable medical paternalism Ive ever met.I immediately crumpled and fell apart and agreed with her. It really affected me. Theres a photograph of Nigot whose 2002 suicide-note declared Nitschke to be her inspiration on the wall of the workshop in Hillegom.

Nitschke developed Sarco with the help of Haarlem-based industrial designer Alexander Bannink. My original design looked more like a bathtub, says Nitschke, whereas Alexander really pushed the idea of making it resemble a vehicle, to give the sense of going somewhere. Engaging suppliers for the project has been interesting. When we first went to see a company down in Vlaardingen about building these strange aluminium tanks, I said to them, Im building some sort of death machine, do you want one of your logos on the side of it? They declined.

Sarcos raison dtre, admits Nitschke, is aesthetic. It obviates what he calls the yuck factor inherent in other tools of peaceful suicide, such as the humble plastic bag and gas. Thats just as efficient, he says. You can tell people over and over and over, as I do in my workshops, that its cheap, reliable, quick and legal, but they say, I dont care if its a peaceful death, I do not like the look of it and I dont want to be found like that.

Sarco, meanwhile, is positively Instagrammable. A sleek conveyance that wouldnt look out of place in a Tesla showroom, it consists of a detachable capsule a coffin, essentially mounted diagonally on a stand. Once inside, its user presses a button, prompting the release of nitrogen from a store-bought canister. From a physiological point of view, it is peaceful, says Nitschke. Its not the same as a rope around the neck, a pillow in the face or a head underwater these are mechanical obstructions to breathing and theyre terrifying, let me tell you.

Unlike previous Nitschke-devised death technologies, Sarco does not require the procurement or prescription of drugs. This is handy because Nitschke is no longer a doctor, having publicly burned his medical licence in 2015 following a dispute with the South Australian chapter of the Medical Board of Australia. It suspended Nitschke before offering to reinstate him providing he fulfil 26 criteria which included refraining from talking about euthanasia. Shortly afterwards, Nitschke and Stewart moved to the Netherlands on an entrepreneurial visa.

Then came the elective death in May 2018 of Nitschkes friend, the 104-year-old botanist David Goodall, who refused to declare any serious condition beyond being tired of life but was nevertheless allowed to kill himself by lethal infusion at the Life Circle facility in Basel. That set a precedent, says Nitschke.

Nitschke and his lawyers began the process of setting up what he vaguely calls an organisation in Switzerland to facilitate the use of Sarco for those who want to end it all for whatever reason. For now, hes keeping the specifics of the facility and its whereabouts close to his chest for fear of sabotage, but he says hes been talking to amenable local psychiatrists whose participation hell need because the soundness of mind criterion still stands and is confident of success.

Its late November Black Friday, in fact when I call Nitschke on his mobile for an update. He and Stewart are on the road with Sarco in tow, having retrieved a display model from a flooded Venice, where it has been on show at the Palazzo Michiel as part of the Venice design festival since May (pictured above).It was bloody awful, he says of the devastation in Venice. Fortunately Sarco was on the palazzos first floor, but still it had to be carried by people wearing thigh-high waders, put on a barge and floated out of the place.

I ask whether Nitschke is feeling nervous about a debut for which there can, after all, be no dress rehearsal. There is a great deal of apprehension and nervousness, he affirms, and I can sense it building now as I watch the calendar days ticking down. Im getting more and more anxious about it because I well and truly recognise that theres a lot hinging on this for other people whose wishes are very important to me and, while I want things to run smoothly theres always the possibility of some bizarre eventuality you cant predict. But once Ive got the comfort of seeing the successful initial uses of the machine I think Im going to be very pleased indeed.

He suspects the reaction against Sarco has been so strong because the whole ethos of the device flies in the face of the current Western paradigm, which dictates that all human effort and endeavour should be directed towards living longer at all costs, and any death is perceived as some fundamental failure that must be conducted shamefully, privately and in secret.

He thinks technology is affording us the opportunity to consider how the end of life might be reframed as a cause for some celebration or at least a momentous event, as it has been regarded by other cultures and in times gone by.

I ask the obvious question: what a successful death might look like in his own case. It would depend, he says, on the circumstances.But I know what I dont want. I dont want to be stuffed full of tubes with doctors hovering over me, pleased with themselves for keeping my heart beating for another five minutes, eking out every last painful second. That, to me, is dystopia.

Original post:

A design for death: meeting the bad boy of the euthanasia movement | 1843 - The Economist 1843

The story in brief: Afflicted by a rare neuromuscular disease, Vervoort was wheelchair-bound by age 20, amid debilitating pain that robbed her of sleep. She turned to sports for some relief. Remarkably, she beat the reigning champion to win a sprinting gold medal at the 2012 Paralympic Games, becoming a nationwide celebrity, and won silver and bronze at the 2016 games,

Meanwhile, Belgium had passed one of the worlds most liberal programs for doctor-assisted suicide in 2002. Till then, Vervoort had never thought of killing herself. But after conferring with physician Wim Distelmans, Belgiums leading euthanasia advocate, she filed paperwork to end her life when she wished, but delayed as her athletic career thrived.

When she retired in 2016 and became a public euthanasia spokeswoman, Times European sports correspondent Andrew Keh closely tracked her situation for the article. On October 22, Distelmans injected lethal poison that took Vervoort's life at age 40.

Journalism 101 classes denounce the New York Daily Newss infamous page one photo of a woman being executed in an electric chair under the bold headline DEAD!

That was back in 1928.

There was no such public or journalistic uproar in 2019 over the Timess two-page display of Lynsey Addarios photo that showed Distelmans killing Vervoort, though unlike in 1928 she assented to this.

Despite the opportunity offered by 44 pages we never learned in any detail why Vervoorts parents were philosophically uncomfortable with her decision for death. Nor were we told what her sister believes.

In other words, there was the usual religious neglect.

Readers might ask whether this family was totally divorced from church influences and how this shaped matters. And there were other important omissions, as well.

The inserts lavish white space also meant there was ample room for a non-partisan sidebar reviewing the secular and religious arguments, con as well as pro, in this longstanding debate, perhaps written by the papers talented but underused religion writer Elizabeth Dias. Another helpful sidebar could have summarized the state of the laws in the 50 states and the particulars with the nations that permit mercy-killing.

Vervoort had been a motivational speaker on living with severe physical challenges. This aspect especially troubled Taylor Hyatt, writing online for Tonjours Vivant (Not Dead Yet), Canadas advocate for the disabled, chronically ill and aged. He worried that because Vervoort made suicide a public matter and sought to influence such decisions by others, young fans could be motivated to follow in her footsteps.

Hyatt raised other concerns. Did she receive appropriate palliative care to counteract her pain? Did she have a peer counselors support as she grappled with the drastic change of retirement and worsening condition? If Vervoort was immersed in pro-suicide messages, did anyone match this with encouragement to live?

Since such vital questions in mercy-killing cases were left unanswered and commonly raised cautions left unmentioned, the lavish Times coverage was both a breakthrough and a journalistic failure in terms of basic public information.

Sources: The BBC posts pro-euthanasia material here. This anti site links to vast resources on the controversy including 100-plus articles just on Belgium.

Continue reading here:

The New York Times offers massive 'special report' on euthanasia -- that's full of holes - GetReligion

The Australian Christian Lobby has denounced euthanasia legislation passed this week by the West Australian parliament as the most dangerous and unsafe in the world.

ACL WA state director Peter Abetz says the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill passed this week in the WA upper house, amid emotional scenes, offers fewer protections than legislation recently passed in Victoria and goes further even than controversial legislation in the Netherlands.

Patients may take the lethal medication without any supervision Peter Abetz

Eternity has been able to verify that doctors and nurses will be allowed to raise Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) with patients but an amendment was passed that ensured they could do so only if they outlined treatment and palliative care options as well.

In Victoria, health care practitioners are not permitted to initiate discussion of VAD with patients but only respond to a patients requests.

The West Australian amendment came about as a compromise after an amendment for doctors not to be able to raise the subject was defeated.

The defeated amendment was moved by Labor MP Tony Buti, who has a daughter with a mild intellectual impairment. He was concerned she might be swayed into considering VAD by a figure of authority such as a doctor if she were facing a terminal illness.

In an article based on his second reading speech, Buti said: My eldest child has a disability. Her name is Alkira and later this year she turns 26. She is in many aspects a capable person. But it is doubtful that she will ever be able to live independently.

When I think of Alkiras future without [my wife] Mandy or I being around, I become anxious. Unless you are in a similar situation, it is difficult to truly understand the anxiety we as parents have on that front.

I worry how someone like Alkira, and for that matter, many elderly people, may be susceptible to being unduly influenced into prematurely ending their lives, even if only by weeks.

Buti told Eternity that while the amendment that was passed did not go as far as he wanted, it was much better than what was in the original bill.

However, Abetz said ACL had many concerns about the lack of safeguards in the bill.

Patients may take the lethal medication without any supervision, which even controversial legislation in the Netherlands does not allow, he said.

The medication is left with the person and that can be taken at any time that suits them without anybody being present and even the Dutch dont allow that.

Some people have complications when they take the poison so, just from a patient welfare perspective, its not a safe thing to do. There should be a doctor present.

Its a poison that can kill people and should that just be left in the patients top drawer, or wherever theres a safety issue.

A spokesperson for WA Health Minister Roger Cook said Victoria, Canada and nine US states all permit self-administration, and allow the person to take the medication home.

There is no evidence from the overseas jurisdictions that this cannot be managed safely. In WA, Schedule 4 and 8 poisons, which will make up the voluntary assisted dying substance, are already dispensed to people and many keep them at home. The WA Bill incorporates elements of the Medicines and Poisons Act into the legislation which offers increased security around the lethal substance.

A safety Plan for the medication will form part of the administration process and it is also a requirement under the code of conduct (Medical Board of Australia) for practitioners discuss management options with their patients. This code is issued under section 39 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2010.

Before prescribing the voluntary assisted dying substance, the prescriber must provide the patient with information about appropriate storage, preparation, how to self-administer and if necessary, disposal of any unused or remaining substance (Clause 68). When supplying the prescribed substance, the authorised supplier must also provide this information to the recipient (Clause 71).

Christian aged care services such as Bethesda Health Care and St John of God in WA have already said they will not permit voluntary assisted dying to take place on their premises.

However, Abetz is concerned that while doctors may refuse to offer VAD out of a conscientious objection, they are required to provide information to a patient about how to end their lives.

It doesnt protect the conscientious objection of doctors because they are required to be an accessory to a persons suicide, he said.

The legislation says that if you have a conscientious objection as a doctor, you still have to provide the patient with the information from the Health Department that will show the person how they can go about ending their life and that makes the doctor an accessory to someone elses suicide.

He said this flies in the face of the Criminal Code under which it is a serious offence to be an accessory to suicide.

If I, for example, were to say to somebody who wants to end their life prematurely, I can print this off the internet and here it is, I can go to jail or get a $10,000 fine and yet a doctor is obligated to provide that documentation. We think that is a serious issue.

A ministerial spokesperson commented: While the Bill acknowledges the ethical, moral and professional objections to voluntary assisted dying held by some practitioners, it also recognises the need to facilitate timely and appropriate access for people who request voluntary assisted dying. To balance these needs, the Bill does not oblige practitioners to refer persons seeking voluntary assisted dying directly on, but does require them to inform the patient of their objection or refusal and give the person information about voluntary assisted dying.

This is consistent with Medical Board of Australia and AMA professional ethical obligations of doctors who are required to not impede access and to provide sufficient information to patients.

As in the Victorian legislation, a person who is diagnosed by two doctors as having a condition likely to cause death within six months (or 12 months for a neurodegenerative condition) is eligible to access VAD.

They would not be in the best position to make an informed decision. Peter Abetz

However, Abetz claimed that there was no provision in the legislation for a specialist in the condition the patient was suffering from to be involved in making that diagnosis.

So if youre dying of cancer, you can get two orthopaedic surgeons to decide that you are going to die within six months and yet theyve got no expertise whatsoever in that field. We think thats absolutely appalling.

However, the ministerial spokesperson denied this.

The Bill requires the doctor to refer to a registered health practitioner with appropriate skills and training, where the first doctor is unable to determine diagnosis or prognosis.

The Bill also provides that a doctor may have regard to relevant information prepared by another health practitioner.

Abetz said there was no need to check whether the person was suffering from depression, when they would not be in the best position to make an informed decision.

However, the ministerial spokesperson said this was also false.

Each of the doctors must assess decision-making capacity, including whether there is any mental illness that may potential impair capacity.

The Bill provides that where there is doubt about capacity, there must be a comprehensive assessment of the person in accordance with the assessment process provided under the Mental Health Act 2014.

Abetz added that there was no provision in the legislation to require family members or the treating doctor to be informed of a patients decision to end their life through VAD.

He was also concerned that there was no provision for checking if a person had been coerced into accessing VAD, other than asking a direct question.

Say an elderly mother is dying of cancer and shes got a significant estate, and if the son has a business thats struggling financially but he knows hes the beneficiary of the will, he can say hey, mum, dont you really think you should be ending it for yourself because youre really suffering. You know, can talk her into it theres lots of subtle ways that people can be coerced.

All the doctor has to do is ask have you been coerced? and if a person says no, theres no further questions need to be asked.

West Australians suffering from terminal illness deserve proper palliative care, not disposal by euthanasia. Peter Abetz

The ministerial spokesperson said participation in voluntary assisted dying must be completely voluntary.

Furthermore, it is fundamental that a patient is not being coerced or unduly influenced to request voluntary assisted dying, or participate in any way in the process leading up to and including the administration of a voluntary assisted dying substance.

There are two independent medical practitioners required to assess whether a patient is acting voluntarily and without coercion. Furthermore, these clinicians may refer the assessment to a practitioner skilled in this area if they are of the opinion that they cannot make an accurate assessment themselves. They may also refer the matter to existing authorities, such as the WA Police, if they believe that a patient is being coerced to undergo voluntary assisted dying. The Bill makes it a crime to unduly influence a patient in such a manner.

GPs are well placed to identify patients at risk of, or experiencing, elder abuse. There are clinical screening tools that are suitable for use with older people and can be readily incorporated into assessment procedures. This would form part of the mandatory training.

Abetz urged the parliament, media and authorities to apply the strictest scrutiny during a planned 18-month implementation period for the legislation. He also commended the courage and determination of the 11 Legislative Councillors who voted against the VAD Bill.

The Bill sets a very dangerous precedent, leaving practical details of implementing the VAD scheme to the discretion of the CEO of the Health Department, avoiding parliamentary scrutiny, Abetz concluded.

It now falls to the press, parliamentary bodies, authorities and the public to be vigilant every step of the way along the implementation to highlight what Britains House of Lords concluded, namely that it is simply impossible to make such legislation safe.

West Australians suffering from terminal illness deserve proper palliative care, not disposal by euthanasia. We look forward to a future parliament repealing this dangerous legislation.

Read the rest here:

Euthanasia law the most dangerous in the world - Eternity News