Posted by Andrew Guernsey at 6/20/2017

An ethic study group for the Italian Jesuit magazine Aggiornamenti Sociali, headed by Fr. Maurizio Chiodi, a newly appointed member of the Pontifical Academy for Life and a theologian of the Northern Italian Theological Faculty of Milan, has joined Italian euthanasia activists in supporting a bill that would legalize physician assisted suicide and/or euthanasia in certain cases. The bill has already been approved by the House and is now before the Italian Senate.

Fr. Chiodis study group cites proportionalism to argue that terminally ill cancer patients and those in a persistent vegetative state (like Terri Schaivo pictured here) should have a legal right to refuse food and water, or to create advanced healthcare directives for such acts of euthanasia by starvation and dehydration. Fr. Chiodis group writes:

2. A democratic state is made up of citizens committed to respecting the different ethics, world views and religions, in a context of mutual inclusion and sincere hospitality without trying to impose itself on others..

5. A controversial issue concerns artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH), which the draft of the law includes among the treatments that can be refused in an AHD [advance healthcare directive] or advance planning. In Catholic thought it is often stated that these means are always obligatory; in reality, ANH [artificial nutrition and hydration] is a medical and technical intervention and as such does not avoid the judgment of proportionality. Nor can it be excluded that sometimes it is no longer able to achieve the purpose of providing nourishment to the patient or the alleviation of suffering. The former case can occur in the illness of terminal cancer; the second [can occur] in a vegetative state which is extended indefinitely, if the patient has previously stated that this prospect is unacceptable. Since it can not be ruled out that in cases like these, ANH [artificial nutrition and hydration] becomes a disproportionate treatment, its inclusion among the refusable treatments is correct.

On the contrary Pope St. John Paul II clearly refuted Fr. Chiodi in this matter in a 2004 address:

4. Medical doctors and health-care personnel, society and the Church have moral duties toward these persons from which they cannot exempt themselves without lessening the demands both of professional ethics and human and Christian solidarity.

The sick person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical signs of eventual recovery.

I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.

The obligation to provide the normal care due to the sick in such cases (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iura et Bona, p. IV) includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration (cf. Pontifical Council Cor Unum, Dans le Cadre, 2, 4, 4; Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, Charter of Health Care Workers, n. 120). The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.

The Pontifical Academy for Lifes 2000 Document, Respect for the Dignity of the Dying as confirmed by John Paul II similarly stated: One must always provide ordinary care (including artificial nutrition and hydration), palliative treatment, especially the proper therapy for pain, in a dialogue with the patient which keeps him informed.

Likewise, a 2007 declaration by the CDF , confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI, declared:

First question: Is the administration of food and water (whether by natural or artificial means) to a patient in a vegetative state morally obligatory except when they cannot be assimilated by the patients body or cannot be administered to the patient without causing significant physical discomfort?

Response: Yes. The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented.

Second question: When nutrition and hydration are being supplied by artificial means to a patient in a permanent vegetative state, may they be discontinued when competent physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover consciousness?

Response: No. A patient in a permanent vegetative state is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means.

February 2017 also saw the publication of a problematically ambiguous update to the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workerss New Charter for Health Care Workers, paragraph 152 of which affirms:

Nutrition and hydration, even artificially administered are to be considered among the basic cares due to the dying, when they do not become too burdensome or are of some benefit. Their unjustified withdrawal can have the significance of a true and proper act of euthanasia.

It should be noted that besides his stance in support of euthanasia, Fr. Chiodi also opposes the Churchs perennial teaching on contraception.

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/06/new-pontifical-academy-of-life.html

Here is the original post:

New Pontifical Academy of Life Appointee Supports Euthanasia by Starvation - Catholic Citizens of Illinois (press release)

Re: Balancing one right with another for access to assisted dying, June 14

Balancing one right with another for access to assisted dying, June 14

Mr. Warren misrepresents what is meant in medicine by a referral. In referring a patient to another physician, I make a pledge of responsibility to that patient that I am acting in their best interest. Whether that other physician proceeds or not with a given intervention is immaterial to my duty to only refer for the good of the patient. If I refer to a surgeon who I know to be careless and unskilled, it doesnt matter whether the surgery goes forward or not the referral itself is immoral. Likewise with euthanasia: if I refer for an assessment for medical killing, the referral itself has a moral weight, regardless of whether the patient receives the needle.

It is offensive to read Mr. Warren accuse conscientious objectors of abandoning or impeding patients in their hour of need. Myself, along with hundreds of other physicians who object to killing patients, want nothing more than to serve our patients in their final illness, providing them with the best possible medical care and showing true compassion. Not wishing to provide or participate in euthanasia as a matter of conscience in no way impedes the broader society (including Mr. Warrens organization) from providing this service. Forcing physicians to refer for euthanasia against their good conscience will only serve to break their personal integrity, the same integrity which they swore to uphold in their life and profession.

Lucas Vivas, MD FRCPC, Toronto

The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5E1E6. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please contact us or see our privacy policy for more information.

View original post here:

Not referring patients for euthanasia is a matter of conscience - Toronto Star

Four days after mid-day's report, health department comes forward to bear medical expenses of government doctor ailing from cancer

Sangita, wife of Dr Bharat Maruthi Lote

Four days after mid-day reported on the heart-breaking video in which a 56-year- old doctor pleaded for euthanasia, with no idea how to pay off debts of Rs 30 lakh incurred for pancreatic cancer treatment, the state's conscience has finally woken. The Health Department has offered to cover the medical cost at the earliest, requesting that treatment not be stopped in the meanwhile.

In a letter dated June 17, the Maharashtra Health Department assured it would cover all the medical costs of the cancer treatment of Dr Bharat Maruti Lote, who spent years in service to the state as a government medical officer. But is it too late?

Having given hope of being able to pay for the expenses, Dr Lote stopped co-operating with the treatment and, as a result, his health has deteriorated. He is currently battling for his life in the ICU. His wife, Sangita, said, "When I was following up with them twice a week, they were mum. Now, without any follow-up, they approached me on Saturday, assuring me that they had started the process to provide financial support."

Also read - Pune: Cancer-ridden doctor asks permission to die in a heart-breaking video

She added, "I am thankful to mid-day for waking the health department to our plight. But now it may be too late, as my husband's health has become worse. If they had acted earlier, his condition would not have been critical."

Dr Bharat Maruthi Lote making a plea for euthanasia in the video

State's assurance The state's letter to the hospital treating Dr Lote states: "The amount of treatment has been gone up to Rs 30 lakh and this amount will be paid. Until then, please do not stop the treatment on account of money. The Chief Minister's office has acknowledged this case and has directed that action be taken to address this grievance on an immediate basis."

As mid-day had reported on June 13, Dr Lote was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in March, after which his family immediately began treatment. As a medical officer posted at the primary health centre at Rampur village in Chiplun taluka, Ratnagiri, and as someone who had served the state health department for 26 years, Lote was entitled to an advance on his salary up to Rs 30 lakh to cover any medical crisis.

Weeks of silence His wife applied for the money on May 15. But with no answer from the authorities, she was forced to scrape together emergency funds Rs 3 lakh from his provident fund, Rs 10 lakh by mortgaging their home and pawning off her jewellery and Rs 12 lakh in loans from friends. Nearly a month later, with still no money in sight, her husband finally expressed his wish to give up on life altogether, requesting euthanasia in a video.

"A week ago, my husband called me and asked me to record a video as he asked for euthanasia, since the medical expenses were still rising and the government had not given us a single penny. Being a doctor, he took a government posting because he wanted to serve the poor. Is this how the government paying him back? He even received two prestigious state-level awards for his serve, and this is how he is being treated now," said Sangita.

Strangers were kinder Not everyone has been as slow to respond to their plight though. After posting the video on Facebook, the couple have received Rs 10,000 in donations from Good Samaritans online. Grateful for their compassion, Sangita said that if the money from the government comes through, these donations will go to help the needy.

Officialspeak Satish Pawar, director of the health department, said,"After the media report, I personally checked the file and found the application was pending at Mantralaya for approval. We are following up on it on an emergency basis, and the Rs 30 lakh will be provided shortly. In the meantime, we have asked that the hospital continue to treat the patient."

Trending Videos

Watch Video: Mystery over model and TV host Sonika Chauhan's death?

Download the new mid-day android app to get updates on all the latest and trending stories on the gohttps://goo.gl/8Xlcvr

More:

Pune: State government to help cancer-afflicted doctor who sought euthanasia - Mid-Day

The soap actress was axed after saying she's considered assisted suicide

CORONATION Street star Claire King has been sacked from her role as Smart Energy spokesperson and may even lose her fee after she claimed she would consider assisted suicide.

The 56-year-old, who plays Erica Holyroyd in the ITV soap, has been ditched from from the role after her remarks about euthanasia caused controversy.

Getty Images - WireImage

In a recent interview plugging the companys energy-saving Smart Meter, Claire told how she was considering ending her life should she become a burden to friends and family as she ages, after being diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis.

She said: I do worry about when Im older and becoming a burden on people around me.

I can understand why people choose assisted dying and its getting to the point where I would consider it myself.

Rex Features

But sources close to the company have said that her comments have upset bosses, leading to her being given the boot.

A source said: They couldnt believe her comments and definitely dont want to be associated with any of that.

This could even lead to her losing her fee entirely.

Claire is leaving Corrie this summer after three years, but the role is expected to be kept open for her to return in the future.

She said: Its been a dream come true to tread those famous cobbles. I was only meant to stay for six weeks initially, so for Erica to be so popular that she stayed for three years and even worked in The Rovers was a real compliment to me as an actress.

ITV

Ive had such a great time with the cast and crew, so its fabulous that they have left the door open for Erica to return in the future.

"Who knows what adventures shell be getting up to away from the Street? Shes certainly not boring.

As for me, Im ready for another challenge. Im not leaving the screens anytime soon, so watch this space.

A spokesperson for Smart Energy GB declined to comment.

Read the original post:

Coronation Street star Claire King sacked as Smart Energy - The Sun - The Sun

Monday, 19 June 2017, 9:32 am Press Release: Right To Life New Zealand Inc

Right to Life questions the findings of this latest Horizon poll conducted on behalf of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society NZ. The question was worded to obtain the result the Voluntary Euthanasia Society wanted.

The Horizon poll found 75 per cent of the 1300 people surveyed favoured a law change to allow the terminally ill and people with irreversible unbearable suffering to be helped to end their lives peacefully.

The poll question disguises the reality that euthanasia entails a doctor giving a lethal injection to a patient or assisting in the patients suicide. There is a considerable difference between a doctor killing a patient and ethical and lawful palliative care, where a doctor provides medical treatment to allow a patient to die peacefully.

It is incorrect for the Voluntary Euthanasia Society to claim that this poll is proof that the majority of New Zealanders support the law being changed to allow a doctor to kill a patient or assist in their suicide.

Right to Life believes that the majority of New Zealanders reject euthanasia, this is proven by the careful analysis of the unprecedented 21,277 written submissions made to the Parliamentary Health Select Committee that is currently dealing with the euthanasia petition of the Hon Maryan Street. A careful analysis of all the written submissions, revealed that 16,411, 77 per cent were opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia. This analysis remains as the most authentic poll on the attitude of New Zealanders to assisted suicide and doctors giving a lethal injection to a patient. Members of Parliament should not be enticed by this misleading poll to support the contentious End of Life Choice bill of David Seymour MP, leader of ACT.

Scoop Media

Excerpt from:

Euthanasia Poll Conducted for Voluntary Euthanasia Society - Scoop.co.nz

Despite asking to adopt the puppy and offering full medical care, Ms Ob was told she couldn't. She got in touch with an animal rescue group, who were also turned down.

She says a vet tried to enter on Sunday morning, but was not allowed in. The centre has now closed for the day.

Hope is suspected to be part-pit bull. Auckland Council's website says it has "a long-standing policy, as did all of the legacy councils before it, not to adopt out dogs that are of this type".

"The Dog Control Act allows councils throughout New Zealand to adopt this policy and many of them do. We strongly believe that this policy is in the best interests of the community as a whole."

But Tracey Moore, Auckland Council's animal management manager, says the dog's breed has not been determined yet.

"It has not been with us for the full seven days yet. Any determination would be premature."

If the dog is found to be a pit bull, it will leave euthanasia perhaps the shelter's only option.

Ms Ob says the shelter workers seemed "truly as heartbroken" as she was.

"I'm not saying that the animal shelter is at fault, but they're holding a puppy so young and she's sick. And she's so sweet, but quiet and withdrawn, because she's so small."

Tracey Moore, Auckland Council's animal management manager says it's sad, yet avoidable.

"[It's a] situation our team sees on a daily basis where yet another dog owner has failed to take responsibility. The council strongly recommends people think very carefully before taking on the responsibility of giving a dog a home, and that dog owners desex their animals."

The dog will be checked by a vet tomorrow, when she passes to legal ownership of the council. A decision will then be made on Hope's fate.

Newshub.

More here:

Sick puppy facing euthanasia because she might be a pit bull - Newshub

There is endless debate about the ethics of euthanasia. Yet even if one sets aside principled objections to the procedure, there are still contextual risks to introducing new medical interventions into a medical market-economy. We can never set aside the risk of a market takeover.

Writing in ABC Religion and Ethics this week, Daniel Fleming from St. Vincents Health Australia explores the risks of market forces undermining attempts to regulate euthanasia once it is introduced in a jurisdiction. Citing sources from Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel to Slovenian intellectual Slavoj Zizek, Fleming argues that once medical procedures are introduced into a particular social context, they face the threat of being governed by the ideology of that social context. And for free market economies, the ideology is capitalism:

Fleming continues:

These are uncomfortable considerations, but as the author observes, its a discussion that legislations considering euthanasia need to have.

MORE ON THESE TOPICS |

Read more here:

Should we worry about a euthanasia market-takeover? - BioEdge

When Atago found himself in a Texas shelter, known for its high-level of euthanasia rates, he no doubt thought it ws the end of the road.

Source: A-Team Elite Rescue Dogs

The senior dog suffered from severe mange, and his skin was irritated and painful. And when he arrived at the shelter after being abandoned, it seemed like he understood that his future didnt look bright. He mournfully laid down on the ground, as if to show he was ready for it all to be over.

But that was without counting on the intervention of Cindy Droogmans, the founder of the associationA-Team ELITE Rescue Dogsbased in New York, which specializes in rescuing animals condemned to euthanasia in shelters. SheexplainedtoThe Dodo :

The shelter wanted to kill him. It seems like he was tied up because of that clasp. Look how rusty it is.

Source: A-Team Elite Rescue Dogs

While Cindy doesnt know Atagos past, she does know his future, which will start with his recovery, after which he can be put up for adoption. Since he met the young woman, his health has gotten better day by day. His fur has started to grow back, and his mange has visibly improved.

After a few days of enjoying walks through sunny Texas parks, Atago was transferred to the New York shelter, where he continues to heal.

Source: A-Team Elite Rescue Dogs

And, in a few weeks, he will find a family who will help him forgot his difficult past and will give him all the love and attention he desperately needs.

Tens of thousands of dogs and cats end up in shelters each year, either due to neglect, abuse or abandonment. Consider adopting before you shop, and visit your local shelters before going to a breeder. Every dog and cat deserves a fair chance at a forever home.

If you live in England, you can visit the RSPCA, and if you live in the United States, you can visit the ASPCA to get more information about pets available for adoption.

* * *

At Holidog, we aim to improve the lives of your furry friends. Enjoy your holidays with peace of mind, knowing your pet is in great hands (find a petsitter near you) and spoil them with our monthly subscription box filled with yummy treats and toys (get your free box here). You can count on us!

Read more here:

Sick, Injured And Abandoned, He Was Condemned To Euthanasia - The Holidog Times

NARELLE HENSON

Last updated12:00, June 16 2017

123RF

Euthanasia is a contentious issue, the world over.

OPINION: The euthanasia debate is back on and if there is one thing we can't afford to do, it is to sit on the sidelines.

What I mean by that, of course, is wriggling out of the debate by saying "oh, I feel a little uncomfortable with it myself, but if others want do it that's up to them".

I have heard that line probably more than any other in the discussions I've had about euthanasia. Many of us feel a bit icky about the idea, and yet think that we have no right to interfere if others want to be euthanased.

It's their choice, after all, isn't it? And who are we to get in between another human being and what they want?

Aside from the fact that it defeats the point of a democratic society, there is another problem to deal with.

We interfere with individual freedom all the time. And we do it because we believe that individual freedom has to be balanced against a thing called the "social good", which means "what is best for the rest of us".

We do not give individuals the freedom to take anything they see and happen to like. We call that stealing and it is a crime. We do not give individuals the freedom to have sex with whomever they would like, whenever they would like. We call that rape, or incest, or abuse depending on the situation. And they are crimes.

And at present we do not give anyone the right to kill, or help to kill, someone. We call that murder. And it is a crime.

Any change to murder laws, and you and I ought to be on high alert. We ought to be looking very carefully at what is changing, and why.

We ought to be looking at what has happened overseas, we ought to especially be looking at the risks involved, but most of all we ought to be looking at who loses out with such laws. After all, for every social change we make there are people who benefit and people who are harmed.

In this case, harm means murder. And that is very serious because once we are dead, we cannot come back.

So if euthanasia laws do result in some people being harmed, saying that we personally feel a bit unsure but we're happy to let others do what they please is a little like saying we're not sure about slavery laws, but we're happy to let others do as they please.

It is unethical, because our silence may be creating victims.

On the other hand, if your reading makes you certain such laws are what is best for our society, why would you want to stay silent? Surely, we should all speak up for what is good, right and best for all of us.

It is no secret I believe that euthanasia laws absolutely will create victims. That is to say, based on the evidence from overseas, safeguards like consent, age restrictions and illness restrictions will gradually be eroded. And, of course, a law without safeguards is by definition not safe.

That matters to me because I have a vested interest in the future. I have a little boy whom these laws will affect in one way or another. And that is the point. We are all connected, and our actions do impact other people, as much as we like to imagine that they don't.

So we can all keep pretending ethics are personal opinion, but the fact remains that the victims of bad laws are real.

That alone should be enough to convince us that the sidelines are not an option in a debate about death.

-Stuff

Read more:

Narelle Henson: Step off sidelines in euthanasia debate - Waikato Times

June 15 is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. Timed to coincide with this international day, the Australian Law Reform Commission has released its final report into a long-running inquiry on Elder Abuse and the Law.

Running to 432 pages, the report takes a comprehensive look at the legal landscape across Australia and argues for a comprehensive nation-wide approach to tackling Elder Abuse. While looking mainly at the law, it also looks at abuse in Aged Care settings and argues for an overhaul of staffing, staff training, recruitment and mandatory reporting type structures to protect people.

The report also looks at training for lawyers and medical professionals.

What is elder abuse?

The World Health Organisation describes Elder Abuse as: a single, or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action, occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust which causes harm or distress to an older person

It is recognized to take various forms, such as physical abuse, psychological or emotional abuse, financial abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect. The World Health Organization has estimated that the prevalence rate of elder abuse in high-or middle-income countries ranges from 2% to 14% of people usually defined as over the age of 60 or 65 years.

The WHO also noted that research in other predominantly high-income countries has found wide variation in rates of abuse in the preceding 12 months among adults aged over 60 years, ranging from 0.8% in Spain and 2.6% in the United Kingdom to upwards of 18% in Israel, 23.8% in Austria and 32% in Belgium.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Whether there is a connection between the extremely high rate of Elder Abuse in Belgium and the existence of their euthanasia regime can only be guessed at, though intuitively one could easily develop a best guess argument based on culture alone.

The report notes that vulnerability to such abuse is not necessarily related to the age of the person. However, the effects of aging, broadly understood, can make our elders vulnerable to such abuse. There is also a connection to disability as noted in the report:

While older people should not be considered vulnerable merely because of their age, some factors commonly associated with age can make certain older people more vulnerable to abuse. Disability, for example, is more common among older people. More than 80% of people aged 85 years or over have some disability. While fewer than one in 20 Australians under 55 years have severe or profound core activity limitations, almost one-third of people aged 75 years or over have such limitations. The authors go on to add: Vulnerability does not only stem from intrinsic factors such as health, but also from social or structural factors, like isolation and community attitudes such as ageism. All of these factors contribute to elder abuse.

We have discussed ageism before in terms of the dominant meme that elderly people are burdens. Similar observations can be made in respect to ableism and disability.

By way of explanation a simple anecdote:

Dr. Kevin Fitzpatrick OBE and I shared a podium in Ireland a few years ago. Kevin became a paraplegic after an incident 40 years previous. He asked the audience to imagine that he and I separately visit our doctor; both of us displaying suicidal tendencies. Kevin observed that, in my case, I would be offered all sorts of support and interventions under suicide prevention strategies. In his case (as had been his experience) he said that the doctor would say that they understood why he wanted to kill himself because he had such a difficult life.

As Liz Carr recently observed, treating each of us differently based on disability is scary in terms of assisted suicide and euthanasia and is one of the reasons why many people living with disability do not want such laws. They already experience discrimination in medical care and recognise the potential that such discrimination will also be present in discussions on this subject.

LifeNews Note: Based in Australia, Paul Russell is a leading campaigner against euthanasia.

Go here to read the rest:

Elder Abuse is a Clear Consequence When Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Are Legalized - LifeNews.com

One year, perhaps 2,000 deaths and several unresolved issues.

As Canada passes the June 17 one-year anniversary of the day Parliament briskly made assisted suicide and euthanasia legal, the debate around medical killing is anything but settled. Thats not to suggest the law may be reversed. Tragically, there is little public support or political will to make that happen. When Canada joined a small list of nations to permit death by doctor, it crossed a moral Rubicon that is without a foreseeable retreat.

But still unanswered is how far Canadian society will push the envelope in terms of who qualifies for assisted dying, and to what extent society will insist that every person who rejects assisted dying have the option of palliative and hospice care to assure them a dignified, natural death.

These vital matters went unaddressed as Parliament scrambled after the 2015 election to draft a law and meet a Supreme Court deadline. It was always unrealistic to expect lawmakers to unravel this complex issue in mere months. Instead, they shrugged and set aside some key questions.

Prominent among these was whether assisted suicide should be offered to teenagers and children, and to the mentally disabled, and should people in the early stages of disease be able to give an advance directive to be killed at a future date when they would be unable to give informed consent. A panel is studying these questions and will submit a report next year.

It is similar for palliative and hospice care.The government has committed to expanding these services but how much and when remain open questions. Meantime, societys benign acceptance of assisted suicide is quickly growing. Its as if now that it is legal, people believe it must be moral.

As Canadian society distances itself from believing that life, all life, is sacred, whats left to determine is which lives are worth preserving. That unsettling debate is now underway, and only a giddy optimist would predict that courts and lawmakers will accept the existing boundaries.

Then there is the matter of reporting, specifically, creating a national framework to provide critical province-by-province data on exactly how often assisted suicide and euthanasia are being requested and performed. Comprehensive and transparent record-keeping is essential to flagging abuse. Also, scrupulous monitoring reflects the seriousness of passing laws that make it acceptable in specific circumstances for one human to end the life of another.

Like so much around this issue, national reporting is a work in progress that wont be settled before next year. Meantime, although estimates put the number somewhere between 1,800 and 2,000, its unknown exactly how many assisted suicides were carried out in the past year.

As anniversaries go, there is nothing happy about this one.

More here:

Editorial: Canada's sad euthanasia anniversary - The Catholic Register

Premier Mark McGowan has thrown his support behind a push for a parliamentary inquiry into legalising euthanasia for terminally ill patients.

The West Australian can reveal the Labor caucus will vote next week on whether to launch a cross-party inquiry into voluntary euthanasia, with the aim of reporting after a year.

Mr McGowan said he would support the establishment of a special parliamentary committee. It is a suitable way forward for this matter to be carefully considered, he said.

Mr McGowan has supported calls for euthanasia reform in the past but indicated it was a conscience issue for Labor MPs.

A Labor source said the committee would allow for a widespread community debate.

(Euthanasia) came up during the election campaign a lot and the community expects us to have the conversation, the source said.

The West Australian understands if the caucus vote endorses the inquiry, it will be modelled on the one held in 2015 by the Victorian Parliament, which recommended legislation of assisted dying for people suffering from serious and incurable conditions.

The proposed committee comes after several government ministers flagged support for the issue in the past six months.

In December, Labor candidate and now Government frontbencher Alannah Mac-JUTiernan and Greens MP Robin Chapple led a push to have a private members Bill legalising euthanasia moved in Parliament before the end of this year.

In March, Health Minister Roger Cook said he supported voluntary euthanasia. He indicated the Government would not introduce legislation but would support individual MPs bids to introduce a private members Bill.

I support voluntary euthanasia and I think we need to legislate to enable people to take control of their lives in their final stages, he said.

The Victorian inquiry, which reported last year, received more than 1000 submissions from medical and legal experts. In its final report, the committee recommended the legalisation, in limited circumstances, of assisted dying.

Since the report and after advice from two medical professionals, the Government drafted legislation to offer euthanasia as an option for terminally ill patients who have less than a year left to live.

Excerpt from:

Labor to vote on legalising euthanasia inquiry for WA Parliament - The West Australian

Support for Euthanasia Holds Steady

Sign up for free daily updates

Monday, June 12, 2017

Massachusetts is the latest state considering whether to legalize physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients, and just over half of Americans support such a law.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 51% of American Adults favor allowing voluntary euthanasia in the state where they live. Twenty-nine percent (29%) are opposed to such a law, but a sizable 20% remain undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

(Want afree daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available onTwitterorFacebook.

The survey of 1,000 American Adults was conducted on June 6-7, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted byPulse Opinion Research, LLC. Seemethodology.

OR

Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.

We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.

Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $4.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.

To learn more about our methodology, click here.

See the article here:

Support for Euthanasia Holds Steady - Rasmussen Reports - Rasmussen Reports

DENVER, Colorado (ChurchMilitant.com) - The Denver-based group Compassion and Choices, formerly known as the Hemlock Society, has released a report, marking the one-year anniversary of the passage of the so-called End of Life Option Act in California. The group states in its release that hundred of adults have been prescribed lethal drugs since the passage of California's euthanasia law. The group also said that the majority of private insurance companies cover the cost of life ending drugs, including Blue Cross, Blue Shield and Kaiser.

As Church Militant reported on May 31, not only are major insurers covering suicide drugs, but they are pressuring healthcare providers to recommend life ending drugs while denying coverage for more expensive life-saving therapy. As the cost of health insurance continues to rise under Obamacare since it was passed in 2010, insurers are incentivised to cover suicide and not life-sustaining treatment, simply because the former is cheaper, making the insurers into de facto death panels.

The End of Life Option Act in California was pushed by the family of Brittany Maynard in cooperation with Compassion and Choices. Maynard was a 29-year-old from the San Francisco Bay Area who moved to Oregon, where assisted suicide had been legal since the 1990s, after being diagnosed with brain cancer. Church Militant reported on the resulting suicide spike following the nationwide coverage of Maynard ending her life.

A 2015 study from the Southern Medical Journal concluded that legalization of physician-assisted suicide not only leads a "copy-cat" effect of suicidal inclinations, but that euthanasia legalization has no effect on the frequency of non-physician-assisted suicide.

In 1980, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released theDeclaration on Euthanasia. In that document, the CDF explained the special place of redemptive suffering in the Catholic faith, "According to Christian teaching, however, suffering, especially suffering during the last moments of life, has a special place in God's saving plan; it is in fact a sharing in Christ's passion and a union with the redeeming sacrifice, which He offered in obedience to the Father's will."

Pope St. John Paul II, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, solemnly defined that euthanasia was a grave evil:

Taking into account these distinctions, in harmony with the Magisterium of my predecessors and in communion with the bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

The retired Episcopal (Episcopal Church of the United States of America) bishop of Newark, New Jersey, John Shelby Spong, who doesn't believe in a personal God, is currently on Compassion and Choices'Board of Advisors. Observers can note the presence and influence of Protestantism, giving oxygen to the culture of death throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, beginning with the 1930 Lambeth Conference, which asserted the moral liceity of contraception.

Have a news tip? Submit news to our tip line.

Like our work? Support us with a donation.

See the rest here:

504 Adults Prescribed Life Ending Drugs in California - Church Militant

Story Highlights

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- As right-to-die legislation is under debate in many states, 73% of U.S. adults say a doctor should be allowed to end a terminally ill patient's life by painless means if the patient requests it. This is in line with the 69% to 70% Gallup has recorded since 2013, but much higher than support for euthanasia before 1990.

These data come from Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs poll, conducted May 3-7. Last month, the Nevada state senate voted narrowly to advance legislation that would allow terminally ill patients in the state the option to end their lives. Maine's House of Representatives rejected similar legislation that same week, however, after it barely passed in the state Senate.

According to the Death with Dignity National Center, five states and the District of Columbia currently have "death with dignity" statutes that "allow mentally competent adult state residents who have a terminal illness with a confirmed prognosis of having six or fewer months to live to voluntarily request and receive a prescription medication to hasten their inevitable, imminent death." The District of Columbia, however, could be barred from funding its recently passed law under President Donald Trump's proposed budget.

Support for euthanasia is nearly double what it was when Gallup first polled on the question in 1947, when 37% said it should be allowed by law. By 1973, a slim majority of 53% supported it. Since 1990, solid majorities of Americans have expressed support for euthanasia, ranging from 64% to 75%.

Smaller Majorities of Weekly Churchgoers, Conservatives Support Euthanasia

Gallup has found that people's views on the subject often differ based on their religious and political persuasions. A slim majority of weekly churchgoers (55%) support allowing a doctor to end a terminally ill patient's life through painless means upon request, whereas nearly nine in 10 adults who rarely if ever go to church say this should be allowed (87%).

The issue is somewhat less divisive among party and ideological groups. About nine in 10 liberals (89%) support euthanasia, compared with 79% of moderates and 60% of conservatives. Also, 81% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents as well as 67% of Republicans and Republican leaners say euthanasia should be allowed.

Support for Euthanasia, by Group

When a person has a disease that cannot be cured, do you think doctors should be allowed by law to end the patient's life by some painless means if the patient and his or her family request it?

Support for Doctor-Assisted Suicide Now Similar to That for Euthanasia

Since 1996, Gallup has asked a separate question about a practice related to euthanasia -- whether doctors should be allowed to assist a terminally ill patient living in severe pain "to commit suicide if the patient requests it." Currently, 67% say doctors should be allowed to do so. This is on the higher end of what Gallup has measured historically. Consistent majorities have expressed support for doctor-assisted suicide in Gallup's trend since the question was first asked in the late 1990s. The low point was 51% in 2013.

Americans have historically responded less favorably to the "doctor-assisted suicide" question than to the euthanasia item, but the gap has diminished in recent years. From 1996 through 2013, an average of 58% supported doctor-assisted suicide, while 69% supported euthanasia. Since then, the averages are 65% and 70%, respectively. The diminished gap could be a result of greater exposure to the issue as some states have passed "death with dignity" laws. Additionally, Americans have recently expressed more liberal views on a variety of issues.

It should be noted that, for many "death with dignity" advocates, semantics are important. According to the American Public Health Association, "Medical and legal experts have recognized that the term 'suicide' or 'assisted suicide' is inappropriate when discussing the choice of a mentally competent terminally ill patient to seek medications that he or she could consume to bring about a peaceful and dignified death." Americans, too, may see less of a distinction between euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide than they have in the past.

Views on Moral Acceptability of Doctor-Assisted Suicide

Since 2001, Gallup has measured Americans' views on the moral acceptability of doctor-assisted suicide along with more than a dozen other issues.

In the latest poll, 57% of Americans say doctor-assisted suicide is morally acceptable -- the highest, by one percentage point, in Gallup's trend.

With 67% of Americans saying doctors should be allowed to assist terminally ill patients in committing suicide but 57% saying it is morally acceptable, some segment of the public thinks it should be legal even though they do not find it a morally acceptable practice.

Bottom Line

In the past year, death with dignity legislation has gone into effect in two states, California and Colorado, and legislation has been passed in the District of Columbia. Though the movement appears to have stalled at least temporarily with legislative roadblocks in Maine and Nevada, Americans' support for the practice remains high.

While Gallup has found that solid majorities support euthanasia in recent decades, the current level of support is on the high end of this trend.

Americans' views on euthanasia have evolved, generally becoming more liberal, and could shift further as states continue to debate a suffering patient's right to die. But support for euthanasia has not been a steady, upward climb; unique cases like those of Terri Schiavo and, more recently, Brittany Maynard, have influenced the national conversation. For the time being, more than two-thirds of national adults continue to support euthanasia -- with majorities in favor even among the least supportive groups, such as weekly churchgoers.

Historical data are available in Gallup Analytics.

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 3-7, 2017, with a random sample of 1,011 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is 4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. For results based on the half-sample of 518 national adults who were asked about euthanasia and the half sample of 493 national adults who were asked about doctor-assisted suicide, the margin of sampling error is 5 percentage points. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting.

Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 70% cellphone respondents and 30% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.

View survey methodology, complete question responses and trends.

Learn more about how the Gallup Poll Social Series works.

The rest is here:

Majority of Americans Remain Supportive of Euthanasia - Gallup

In a bid to increase pet adoptions and reduce euthanasia rates at Morgan County Animal Control, newly hired Director Darren Tucker has expanded adoption hours to include Saturday.

Tucker said the shelter took in 108 dogs and 103 cats during his first month on the job. It surrendered 17 cats and 12 dogs to rescue groups and adopted out another three cats and five dogs to new homes.

It also euthanized 42 dogs and 66 cats, he said. Noting that some animals are not adoptable for health reasons and that the shelter has limited space and resources, Tucker called euthanasia at the public shelter a necessary evil.

But he also said he is hoping to reduce the shelters euthanasia rates by increasing adoptions and encouraging more county residents to spay and neuter their pets.

The shelter is now open from 9 to 11:30 a.m. each Saturday, starting this past weekend. Normally, the shelter, located in Hartselle, has been only open for adoptions 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Tucker said he is hopeful the expanded hours allow more people to visit the shelter, increasing the odds of pets getting adopted.

Were blessed to have a lot of no-kill shelters that come through here, but just to be perfectly honest, if you have two or three rescue groups that come through and then you have people who want to adopt a dog come through and that animal is still in the kennel, it doesnt look good, and you can only keep them for so long, he said.

Tucker is also planning an open house from 8:30 a.m. to noon July 29 to help raise awareness about the shelter and its animals which he said is the greatest challenge for the moment and to educate the public about the importance of vaccinations, the countys leash laws, and the need to spay and neuter pets.

A lot of people arent aware that in the county we have a leash law, he said.

While prices have not been solidified, the open house will feature reduced-cost adoptions, pending the results of fundraising efforts through the sale of T-shirts and animal-identification microchips.

Tucker said a local veterinarian technician is volunteering her services to microchip pets for a reduced cost of about $15 during the open house. The revenue will help reduce adoption costs, he said, and pet owners are asked to schedule microchipping in advance to ensure there are enough time slots.

Tucker said he is also taking pre-orders for T-shirts as part of a fundraiser to reduce adoption costs. Current adoption prices are $110 for a dog and $80 for a cat. That covers the cost of spaying and neutering, health checks and vaccinations.

May numbers at the shelter were up from March, when the shelter took in 65 dogs, 22 cats, turned over 24 to rescue groups and euthanized nine dogs and eight cats, according to County Commission Chairman Ray Long.

At Decatur Animal Services, Kennel Manager Kari Hallman said adoption rates and dropoffs generally increase this time of year, because of litter season and because kids are out of school for the summer and more likely to adopt.

The Decatur shelter took in 90 cats and 139 dogs in May. It euthanized 26 dogs, including 11 sick or injured and 15 feral dogs, and 60 cats, including 15 that were aggressive toward people or other animals, 28 sick or injured, 10 feral cats and seven at their owner's request.

For anyone looking to adopt an animal that might not otherwise find an owner, Hallman said adult dogs and cats, especially black ones, are at a disadvantage when it comes to attracting the eye of a potential new owner.

They dont even see them. They tend to walk by them and go to the brown dog, she said.

Additionally, dogs with any health problems are less likely to be adopted, she said.

No one wants high euthanasia rates, said Brian Lundberg, manager of Decatur Animal Services. I think the best answer is the most obvious, spay and neuter awareness, and actually practicing it.

Lundberg said most people do a good job at that, but we need everyone onboard to make real tangible progress.

Read more:

New Morgan animal shelter director wants to curb euthanasia ... - The Decatur Daily

Monday, 12 June 2017, 9:55 am Press Release: Family First New Zealand

MEDIA RELEASE

10 June 2017

Claim Of Religious Opposition To Euthanasia Debunked

Family First NZ says that a full analysis of submissions made to the Inquiry on assisted suicide by the Care Alliance shows 77% opposition to any change in the law, but also conclusively rebuts the claims made by ACT MP David Seymour and other supporters of assisted suicide that opposition to euthanasia is driven by religious people only.

13,539 (82%) of the 16,411 submissions opposed to euthanasia contained no reference to religious arguments, while 1,535 used some, and just 1,337 relied mainly on religious arguments. Ironically, 208 submissions referred to religious reasoning in supporting euthanasia.

David Seymour is quick to demand the removal of blasphemy laws, but perhaps his real focus should be on getting his own facts straight and examining the real reasons for widespread opposition to assisted suicide, says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

This includes the disability sector, senior citizens, human rights advocates, and concerns that poor people who dont have access to better healthcare could feel pressured to end their lives.

It is ironic that ex-MP Maryan street implied that a record 22,000 responses to her petition meant that it is time to legalise euthanasia. In fact, the message is clearly the exact opposite. New Zealanders want a conversation - but they are opposed to assisted suicide as the solution, says Mr McCoskrie.

David Seymour should pull the plug on his private members bill so that the important conversation around end-of-life care can happen.

ENDS

Scoop Media

Visit link:

Claim Of 'Religious' Opposition To Euthanasia Debunked - Scoop NZ - Scoop.co.nz (press release)

A UK actress has announced she is seriously pondering euthanasia due to fears of being a burden when she can no longer care of herself. From the Manchester Evening News story:

Actress Claire King had revealed that she is considering euthanasia after being diagnosed with a degenerative disease. Claire, who plays Erica Holroyd in Corrie, suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, an autoimmune disease where the bodys own immune system attacks the joints.

The 54-year-old actress developed rheumatoid arthritis in the early 90s and she has had joints removed and plates put in her fingers as a result of the condition. Former Emmerdale star Claire, who is divorced and has no children, worries about becoming a burden when she gets older and understands why people consider assisted dying.

Speaking with the Sunday Mirror she said: I can understand why people choose assisted dying and its getting to the point where I would consider it myself. Im not going to be hurting any offspring as I havent got any. Most of my family will be gone. Its not a selfish thing. Its a decision at a certain age, when youre becoming a burden to others.

We can all empathize with those fears. But note: Kingsdesire to die has to do withexistential anguish, not unbearable pain, which is euthanasias selling point.

Studies from Oregon and Canada show that the request to die is overwhelmingly caused by such anguish. But heres the thing: Such despaircan often be alleviatedwith appropriate mental health and sociological interventions.

But in our rush to honor lethal choice, we often deny people the very help that could restore their desire to live.

Worse, when we say, Of course you want to die, here are your poison pills or lethal jabwe confirm the despairing persons worst fears about themselves. In essence, we are telling them: Yes, you are a burden. Yes, your life isnt worth living. Yes, we are better off if you are dead.

Euthanasia is many things, but true compassionwhich means to suffer withisnt one of them.

Read the rest here:

Euthanasia Abandons Despairing People to Worst Fears - National Review

As much as their owners would like them to, pets don't live forever at some point, many people are forced tohavea difficult conversation with their veterinarian about euthanasia.

Dr. Ted Morris spoke with Daybreak Alberta this week about when it's time to consider putting your pet down.

Here is an edited version of their conversation.

Q. How often do you see pet owners struggle with this?

A.All the time. It's a really difficult decision for people to make and it's a really personal one.

Some people don't want to watch their pets go downhill at all. They want their memories of their pet to be when they were happy and healthy.

There's the flip side of that, some people won't let go until they know they've exhausted every possible avenue of treatment.

Veterinary students examine a cat at the CUPS pet health clinic. Dr. Ted Morris says quality of life is the most important thing to consider when it may be time to put your pet down. (CBC)

Q. How symbolic is putting a dog down?

A.It's a feeling of giving up. There's so much emotion wrapped up in it.Even with my own dog, I probably waited a week too long before bringing her in.

Q. What are some warning signs to watch for?

A.Look for symptoms like around the clock pain,daily vomiting and diarrhea, loss of appetite not eating for 2 days or more andnot being able to still do things that make them happy.

Q. When do you performeuthanasia with the pet owner present?

A.It's a mix. Many do stay. I would allow for owners to make decisions about the process. Whether it's bringing in a group of friends, lighting candles, saying prayers or playing music.

I'm notorious for turning euthanasias into wakes, if I can. We will do whatever you need.

Q. What do you say to those who refuse the process of euthanasia?

A.Whether a moral or religious issue, the focus then becomes palliative and longevity care. I'd recommend using a lot of painkillers.

If you have the time or dedication to do it, there's absolutely nothing wrong with hospice care.The only thing that's unacceptable is to do nothing.

We owe it to [animals], as compassionate pet owners, to do something to ease their end of life.

Q. When have you declined putting a pet down?

A.First, I'll find out what's going on, and see if there's an issue to be worked on.

The time I really won't do it is if it's for what vets call a "convenience-euthanasia," which is basically someone saying,"I don't want this perfectly healthy animal anymore. There's nothing wrong with them, but I just don't want them."

Euthanasiatakes a bit of an emotional toll.

Q. Does it take a toll on you?

A.It's sad every time. I've known a lot of animalsfor their whole lives.I reserve it for pets who need it.

With files from Daybreak Alberta

Go here to see the original:

Pet euthanasia: Finding peace putting animals down - CBC.ca

STACEY KIRK

Last updated05:00, June 11 2017

NZN VIDEO

Parliament to debate a bill that would allow voluntary euthanasia.

OPINION: In politics, timing is everything.

And the clock has begun ticking on a time-bomb that has lain dormant in Parliament's infamous biscuit tin for more than a year.

ACT leader David Seymour's bill to legalise euthanasia waspulled from the members' bill ballot on Thursday. The extent to which itdetonates in the coming monthswill depend purely on old-fashioned politicking.

Euthanasia is a debate this country has had before. It's divisive, emotive and a hugely important debate to be had over personal rightsthat should not be shiedaway from.

READ MORE: *MPs to vote on euthanasia *Euthanasiamay be answer to incurable pain *Euthanasiaexpert set to tour NZ *Most Kiwis support euthanasia *Stuff Nation: Your stance on euthanasia

It's also an issue that polls have shown considerable public support for, particularly among New Zealand's older population - an important voting bloc for National.

MARION VAN DIJK/FAIRFAX NZ

ACT leader David Seymour's euthanasia bill has been pulled from the ballot. He'll put up a hard fight to get it through each hurdle, even if it creates a headache for the party he's dependent on to remain in Parliament.

A select committee inquiry into the matter has already garnered the most amount of public submissions in history - 20,000 - and the findings of that won't have any affect on whether the law changes.

But this time it's real, and four months out from an election - which National makes no bones about seeing as a race to hold the middle ground - is not the time it would have chosen to have Prime Minister Bill English's staunch social conservatismon display.

Seymour is already manoeuvring to box National into a corner, away from filibustering his bill into oblivionahead of the September Election.

1 NEWS

Matt Vickers says, "When Lecretia took her case in 2015 she was hoping to galvanise political action".

Between now and when the house rises on August 17there's three Members Days left - days set aside to debate members billsnot on the Government's agenda.

There might be a temptation to make it the problem of the next Government.

National could do that by developing a sudden interest in bills it had previously deemedtoo insignificant to adopt itself.

It would call on its MPs to fill every second of their allocated speaking time;drawing out debate to push euthanasia's first reading into the nextparliamentary term.

It would be a cynical attempt to inoculateEnglish and other senior ministers from a divisive issue that could affect vote share in their own electorates.

Seymour and campaigners would rightly pounce, using every opportunity to highlight that cynicism and leverage it into an election issue.

For that reason,it may not be a wise move.

Seymour needs to get it past three readings, one at a time. National could well decide to wave it through the first before term ends, and park it in select committee.

The campaign line being thereafter: "We're happy to have a debate about this, that's why we've voted it through to committee. The public will get their say, we'll hear all the evidence, and can make an informed decision once that's happened." (Whispers:"next parliamentary term".)

From then, it's aconscience vote and all bets are off. Rough straw polls put the split in the House at 33 MPs who currentlysupport the bill, 27 who do not and 37 who were either undecided, or not publicly disclosing their position.

And it pays not to make the mistake of simply thinking it comes down to a liberal vs conservative divide.

The Greens and Labour certainly see an opportunity to detract from the economic story English and Finance Minister Steven Joyce would like to fight the campaign on.

But where many might assume they represent the more socially progressive parties, there is concern among their MPs that the euthanasia bill must afford adequate protection for the mentally ill and vulnerable.

It's the rule of politics: the advantage lies with who gets to draw the battle lines.

Then comes the grenade.

-Sunday Star Times

Continued here:

Stacey Kirk: Euthanasia threatens to shift election battleground - Stuff.co.nz