Category Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

The State of the States

Ed

This is the final part of my observations from the 2nd International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Click here to read Part 2, The Coming “E” Battle.

In November 2008, Washington joined Oregon as the only states in the United States to have legalized physician-assisted suicide. Montana was added shortly thereafter by judicial fiat; the Montana ruling is currently being appealed and will hopefully be overturned.

On May 22, 2009, the Oregonian reported the first death in Washington under the so-called Death with Dignity law. These legislative and judicial gains have emboldened those who want to legalize physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia nationwide to step up their efforts.

In fact, 2009 has already seen a number of attempts to pass Oregon-style “death with dignity” acts.  Some bills died in committee, some were defeated, and some are being delayed until the next legislative session.  Here are the six states that have been (or continue to be) targets for attack in 2009:

  • Connecticut
  • Hawaii
  • Massachusetts
  • New Hampshire
  • Pennsylvania
  • Vermont

For more information on these and other legislative and ballot initiative attempts to pass so-called death with dignity acts, please see the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide website.

At the Symposium, Dr. Patricia O’Halloran from Washington stated that they learned some hard lessons in the passage of I-1000 (as Washington’s Death with Dignity ballot initiative was called). In polls taken after the vote, it was learned that the following talking points may have influenced the undecided voters to vote against the bill.  These points may be areas to be targeted for those who will be fighting the battle in another state.

  • Insurance companies may not pay for treatment (especially if the treatment is deemed too costly), but they will pay for physician-assisted suicide.
  • There is no familial notification required in Washington’s Death with Dignity law.
  • Depression is considered a legitimate reason  for requesting physician-assisted suicide.
  • Seniors and those with disabilities are at a greater risk then the general population.
  • The medical profession is against physician-assisted suicide.
  • Abuse of the statute in Oregon goes un-reported by the mainstream media.

The coalition that was formed to oppose Initiative-1000 is continuing in their battle as True Compassion Advocates.  Click here to see some of the advertisements they were able to air on television to help educate the public on what physician-assisted suicide really means for those who are terminally ill.

Attorney Margaret Dore, whose area of expertise is Elder Law, has spoken and written on various aspects of how to deal with end-of-life decisions. She said that one of the problems with physician-assisted suicide legislation is that it often states that patients must be able to “self-administer” the lethal doses of medication. According to Margaret, the problem with this wording is that the legal definition of “self-administer” is the act of ingesting. This phrase could mean that you put the pills in your mouth, or someone else can put the pills in your mouth, as long as you are ingesting the pills it’s considered “self-administered”. Margaret also noted that this phrase can be interpreted as someone putting something into your IV bag; so what is touted to be “self-administered” in reality can become, “other”-administered, which would no longer be suicide, but would cross that line into the realm of euthanasia.  She ended her session by encouraging pro-life folks to shape their arguments around “choice” and then show it as a lie. For more information on how to do this, see her article that was published by the King County Bar Association and the Washington State Bar Association.

The final thoughts I’d like to share with you come from William Toffler, MD.  He noted that during the first year that physician-assisted suicide was legal in Oregon, 14 physicians wrote 15 prescriptions for the lethal dose of medication. In 2008, after 10 years of so-called “death with dignity,” 45 physicians wrote 85 prescriptions for death. Click here to see the 2008 annual report from the Oregon Department of Human Services.

Dr. Toffler pointed to the Michigan Law Review Volume 106, Number 8 that has a collection of articles under the theme: “Glucksberg and Quill at Ten: Death, Dying and the Constitution.” Click here to read an article of note called “Physician-Assisted Suicide in Oregon: A Medical Perspective” that details some of the irregularities in how “death with dignity” has been administered in Oregon and presents a few case studies.

Dr. Toffler said that the Oregon Health Plan (OHP) will not pay for chemotherapy, radiation treatments, or cancer surgery if the patient is expected to survive less than five years. He did note that OHP will pay for physician-assisted suicide as “comfort care.”

He also pointed out some erroneous reports in the mainstream media regarding Barbara Wagner (she was featured in a video during the battle against Initiative-1000 in Washington, click here and scroll down to see her video). Dr. Toffler noted that:

  • The drug her doctor recommended, Tarsova, is not an experimental drug;
  • Barbara never asked for physician-assisted suicide; OHP took it upon themselves to suggest it as a one of the medical procedures they would cover; and
  • No one had said that Barbara had less than six months to live (one of the legal parameters established in the act), yet OHP offered Barbara the option of physician-assisted suicide.

The final thoughts I was left with from the Euthanasia Symposium revolved around questions we should ask of proponents of physician-assisted suicide.

  1. Why is this available only to people with six months to live? Why not 6 years? Who set this limit and why?
  2. Why are doctors asked to participate in this? Why do we make those who are supposed to care for people the judge, jury, and executioner of someone?
  3. Why just overdoses of sleeping pills or other medication? Why not lethal injections as the surety of injections is much higher than taking an overdose of pills?
  4. Are so-called “death with dignity” laws in violation of the American with Disabilities Act? Usually, when someone is depressed and suicidal, he is not given a lethal overdose of medication with the blessing of  his doctor. Yet when someone with disabilities (with a terminal illness or not) is depressed and suicidal, the answer is for his doctor to prescribe a lethal overdose. Is this discriminatory?

For more on end-of-life issues, please see the websites such as the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and Care Not Killing.

As Lionel Roosemont stated at the conference, “Are you ready for the coming ‘E’ battle?” Are you ready to fight for the most vulnerable in our society? Are you ready to speak not only for the pre-born child in the womb but also for those who are told by our society that their “lives are not worth living”?

Valuing Human Life

Ed

2009_conference_logo_72_pixelsLast night I heard Bobby Schindler give the keynote speech at the National Lutherans For Life Conference. He is Terri Schindler Schiavo’s brother and the executive director of the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation. He briefly recounted the events around Terri’s situation and the final days of her life.

The purpose of Bobby’s keynote wasn’t to re-tell all the details of Terri’s story, but to urge us to stand for the weak and defenseless. He noted that the most at-risk person in our society today is someone who has a disability; in our culture, having a disability puts you at the mercy of someone else to determine whether your life is worth saving or not–just like Terri.

He made it clear that Terri was not dying in 2005; she did not have a terminal illness and she was not in a so-called “permanent vegetative state” as was reported in the mainstream media. Terri had a severe cognitive disability, and it was decided that her life was not worth saving because her so-called “quality of life” was deemed unsatisfactory. She was refused all nutrition and hydration until she died nearly two weeks later of dehydration–that’s usually called “murder.”

During this time, several people were arrested for attempting to get water to Terri in the hospice facility where she was slowly being killed. One of them was a 10-year-old boy and part of his punishment was to write a letter of apology. The text of the letter is reproduced below; to read the letter in his own handwriting, click here.

To whom it may concern,

My name is Joshua Heldreth, I am 10 years old. I was arrested on Good Friday for trespassing on the hospice center’s property.

I am not a law breaker, I keep God’s law. That is very important to me.

In the Bible it says thou shalt not murder in the 10 commandments. It says to love your neighbor as yourself. It also says in Matthew 25, When I was hungry and thirsty you gave me food and water. Doing it for others was like doing it for God and He called the people who did that righteous and let them into heaven. So I wanted to do the same thing.

Not giving Mrs. Shiavo [sic] food or water was wrong. The reason I had to go on your property was because Jesus would do the same thing. It made me sad that she was so thirsty and it made Jesus sad too. I knew she would die without water and I am called by Jesus to be a defender of the defenseless. So I had to go on your property to try to bring her a drink.

I am sorry that you didn’t like that and wouldn’t allow me to help her when I came on your property. I am also sorry you didn’t help save her life and one day you will have to tell God why. I won’t be able to help you then like I tried to help her.

I will pray for you every day that you will some day have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and serve Him whole heartedly [sic] no matter what.

Joshua Heldreth

Maybe it’s just me, but…if it is so clear to a 10-year-old that it’s not right to cause a person to die by denying him nutrition and water, why do our laws stipulate that it is okay to withhold these things from someone who cannot speak for himself? And if a child can stand up and speak for life, what excuses do we have for not doing the same? Where will we draw the line? Who will decide how much “quality of life” a person with disabilities has to have to make his life worth saving? When will we defend the defenseless?

Not the Kind of Health Care Reform that We Need

Ed

The current legislation being considered by Congress is of grave concern for pro-life folks.  In a nutshell, there are provisions in the legislation that would require federal funds (your tax dollars) to be used fund abortions. It can also be used to force medical professionals to perform abortions even if they morally object to abortion, thus circumventing the conscience clauses currently in effect to protect them.

Another end result of this legislation is the requirement for equal access to abortions for everyone. That could mean, for example, that even if a community doesn’t want an abortion clinic in its neighborhood, they may be forced to accept one because per this legislation everyone is entitled to have access to an abortion if they so choose; and that right to access could trump the rights, and override the objections of, the people living in the neighborhood.

Let’s not forget about the other life issues impacted by the type of health care reform currently being proposed. A rating system is being considered to determine who should be eligible for certain medical treatments. This would create a so-called “quality of life” index – – if you don’t rate high enough, you won’t get the treatment you need.  This is already happening in other countries with nationalized health care systems – it’s called “rationing.” Is this what you want for your future?

Here are some links to help illumine the facts. When you’re done reading these sites, go to the National Right to Life link at the end to send a message to your congressional representatives urging them to oppose the health care reform legislation. You can also participate in a webcast on Thursday evening, July 23 at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time with several pro-life leaders (Father Frank Pavone, Dr. James Dobson, Congressman Chris Smith, Congressman Joe Pitts, and many others) by clicking here to register.

Information Links:

Click here for a collection of National Right to Life press releases and articles.

Click here for the Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the health care reform legislation.

Click here for the Family Research Council’s analysis about what is included in the legislation.

Click here for an op-ed piece from the Wall Street Journal about President Obama’s plans for health care reform. This article is from December 20, 2008 and was a harbinger of what is being discussed now and what will be coming down the road soon.

And since we should look at the other side once in a while, click here for an article by Peter Singer calling for rationed health care which appeared on-line on July 15, 2009 and was published in the July 19, 2009 issue of the New York Time Magazine. By the way, Peter Singer is a professor at Princeton University who supports and promotes abortion-on-demand, infanticide, assisted suicide, and euthanasia.

Action Links:

Click here for the National Right to Life page to send message to your congressional representatives (scroll to the bottom).

Click here to register for a webcast by pro-life leaders discussing aspects of the current health care reform legislation we should be concerned with.

The Coming “E” Battle

Ed

This is Part 2 of my observations from the 2nd International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide recently held in Lansdowne, Virginia.  Click here to read Part 1, Assisted Suicide in the United Kingdom.

I’d like to bring you the story of Lionel Roosemont and his wife Renate. Lionel is a husband and father of four from Belgium.  He talked about the culture of death in that country and how his family has had to deal with the implications of that paradigm. It should be noted that euthanasia is legal in Belgium.

When Renate was in the 7th month of pregnancy with their 4th child, she felt something was wrong. They went to their local clinic where doctors told them that the baby had hydrocephalus. The doctors immediately advised that Renate get an abortion because the baby would probably not live long after birth. The doctors told the Roosemonts that the baby will most likely be blind, deaf, and paralyzed. Although Lionel and Renate kept asking the doctors for other options, they were continually told that an abortion was the only answer.  Lionel and Renate refused to end the baby’s life.  However, they did begin preparing for the baby dying shortly after birth.  They chose the name Tikvah for their daughter, which means “jewel.” Fully prepared for her death, Lionel was surprised when the doctor came into the waitng room to tell him that the baby was doing fine and scored between 9 and 10 on the Apgar tests.

Although Tikva has significant disabilities, the family loves her and cares for her; she has brought much joy and love into their lives.  Lionel said, “People who cannot accept that we live in a less-than-perfect world will have problems with children like Tikva.” He noted that currently there is pending legislation in Belgium that would legalize euthanasia for minors and infanticide (as the Netherlands have had since 2006). There are also moves to force hospitals to perform euthanasia.

In the 13 years since Tikva was born strangers, after seeing Tikva’s condition or hearing her cry uncontrollably as she sometimes does, have repeatedly come up to the family (even to the other children) and stated that it would be better to just give her an injection so she will die.

Lionel also talked about “the weekend clean-up” that often occurs in Belgian hospitals.  He stated that when the socialized medicine program in Belgium can no longer afford to cover a patient’s treatment, doctors often “help” some of those patient to die. Lionel said that the family never leaves Tikva in the hospital alone in fear of what someone may do to her.Remember Belgium Enlist Today

Lionel stated, “Once the beast of euthanasia is released, the future looks bleak.” He concluded with a little family history.  Lionel’s father had fought in World War II at Dunkirk and with the Belgian Underground.  His father and two uncles were captured and put into a Nazi concentration camp. Only his father survived the war.

“Are you ready for the coming ‘E’ battle?” was the question Lionel asked the attendees. He challenged us to remember “Little Belgium” as we did during World War I when the free world came to the aid of Belgium. Now the battle he asks us to fight for is “life”; not only for Belgians, but for ourselves as well.

Click here to read the final part from the symposium, The State of the States.

Assisted Suicide in the United Kingdom

Ed 3 Comments

I recently spent two days at the 2nd International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.  Attendees from around the world gathered to learn the latest information on what is happening in the battle to stop the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. In Part 1 of my observations, I’d like to start with some information from a speaker from the United Kingdom.

Dr. Peter Saunders, director of the Care Not Killing Alliance, spoke about past and current efforts in the UK to legalize assisted suicide. He noted the following as important legislative steps towards where the UK is presently:

  • 1961 Suicide Act — Suicide was legal, but assisting with a suicide was still illegal.
  • 1965 Murder Act — Outlawed the death penalty, but the intentional killing of another person was still illegal.
  • 2005 Mental Capacity Act — It is a crime for a doctor to treat a patient against an advance refusal (living will in the US).

After several failed attempts to introduce bills to legalize assisted suicide, the main pro-euthanasia organization in the UK (Dignity in Dying) changed tactics.  Since so many advances have been made in the area of palliative care and pain mitigation, the focus has switched from cancer patients with uncontrollable pain to people with neurological diseases – the argument being that they should have the option to choose when to die. In 2006, the Assisted Dying Bill was introduced in the Parliament.  The main points of the bill included:

  • This was physician-assisted suicide (modeled after Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act), not euthanasia.
  • Nurses would be involved in the process.
  • This bill was for England and Wales only.

After much work by the Care Not Killing Alliance, the bill was defeated. However, that has not stopped pro-euthanasia forces in the UK. In September 2008, medical ethics expert Baroness Warnock stated that dementia patients are wasting their families’ lives and wasting the resources of the National Health Service, thus they have a duty to die.

In early December 2008, British television aired a program showing the assisted suicide of an American in Zurich highlighted the growing “suicide tourism” that occurs in Switzerland due to its relatively unrestrictive assisted suicide laws. Shortly thereafter, well-known broadcaster John Humphrys announced he was co-authoring a book in which he will call for the legalization of euthanasia. Finally, assisted suicide was glamorized in a docudrama that aired in January 2009 on BBC called “A Short Stay in Switzerland.”

And now, there are efforts underway calling for an amendment to the Suicide Act to protect from prosecution anyone who helps someone to travel to Switzerland in order to commit suicide.

After you’ve digested all of this, click here to read Part 2, The Coming “E” Battle.