Daily Archives: May 6, 2017

Anyone looking at the experience in Canada since euthanasia and assisted suicide laws came into force last year, should be struck by the moves to extend the law so soon after they had been passed. After all, when you look to Belgium and Holland and even Oregon USA, the moves to expand their laws and/or the application of their laws has taken some time to develop.

There are many reasons why the European and Oregon situations have taken time to see the various incremental legal and effective interpretational changes gather momentum. In Belgium and Holland the statutes were written in very broad terms relating to unbearable and irretrievable suffering. While the understanding at the time of their debates focussed on euthanasia as a last resort option for people in the last stages of a terminal illness, the wording never restricted application in that way.

In the last five years and more there has been a continual pushing at the edges of the community understanding of the breadth of the law. Euthanasia for tinnitus, for blindness, for psychological suffering, for the accrual of minor complaints associated with old age, for fear of entering a nursing home all unthinkable in the beginning. Add to that the 2013 statute amendment to include children in Belgium and the current discussion in Holland in respect to assisted suicide for people over 70 years of age who are simply tired of life, and one can legitimately wonder where it will all stop.

As Dutch journalist, Gerbert van Loenen once observed:

Making euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide legal started a development we did not foresee. The old limit thou shalt not kill was abandoned, a new limit is yet to be found.

Canada seems bent on catching up with the Benelux countries at some pace.

In Victoria, Australia, there also seems to be something of a rush.

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

A Ministerial Advisory Panel charged with the role of consulting about how to make assisted suicide safe, is due to provide an interim report to Premier Daniel Andrews any day now. The final report is due in July and legislation is slated for the second half of this year.

The Panels reference was the Legal and Social Issues Committee of the Victorian Parliament report in the matter of the Inquiry into End of Life Choices that was finalised in mid-2016.

Recommendation 49 of that report called upon the Victorian Parliament to legislate assisted suicide for people, suffering from a serious and incurable condition which is causing enduring and unbearable suffering and that these persons must be at the end of life (final weeks or months of life).

So, not necessarily but most likely a terminal illness but still only for those at the very end or, as the Dutch talked about: a last resort option.

Politically this makes sense. The game, if I can call it that, is to gain 50% plus one support in the two chambers of parliament. The logic is, of course, that it is the first hurdle that is the hardest. Better to get something on the statute books rather than risking yet another loss from trying for too much.

In September last year, Victorian Health Minister, Jill Hennessy warned pro-euthanasia advocates not to be too greedy:

Politicians need to ask themselves: is it about being pure or is it about saying lets get the best result we can?

This warning did not stop Victorian euthanasia supporter, Dr Rodney Syme from entering the debate immediately arguing for an expansion of eligibility to include neurological failure, such as multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease and Parkinsons disease, who have progressive diseases, and those with profound stroke or high quadriplegia who have a static condition, may have an ill-defined trajectory to death, and while suffering unbearably, may be discriminated against by narrow legislation. It is precisely the same sort of argument that could (and will) be made for a later amendment if Syme does not get his way. Think about that.

Indeed, everyone knows that later extension is a possibility via an amendment bill. Euthanasia for children was originally considered for the first Belgian debate. Trudo Lemmens relates that, children were explicitly excluded from the ambit of the original law because it was deemed so controversial that including it may have threatened approval of the Euthanasia Bill.

Back in Victoria, there have been a few leaks about the possible direction the Panels report might take. One article pointed to a plan not to provide effective conscience protections for doctors.

Today we are told that the Panel will recommend a prognisis-based qualifier:

But the advisory panel wants to extend the timeline and the government is believed to be considering three options: 24 months, 12 months or six months.

It is mere speculation on my part, but it would seem that this kind of qualifier might be a compromise position between the Parliamentary Inquirys recommendation and the agitation of the likes of Syme. Either way, it is much broader than the original at the end of life (final weeks or months of life).

This leaves many questions unanswered: Does this call into question the judgement of the members of the Parliamentary Committee? Is it now considered that the Victorian public are open to this kind of extension where those who submitted to the Parliamentary Inquiry were clearly not? Will the members of the Parliamentary Committee rebuke the Panel for their extension?

Lack of answers aside, the idea of incremental extension is now out in the open for all to see. No Victorian MP can ignore it. They now need to question, not whether the model presented satisfies their judgement on a set of limits, but that their vote in support of any framework will most certainly provide precursory endorsement and impetus to later extension.

Dutch Health Minister, Edith Schippers, speaking enthusiastically about euthanasia recently, confirmed: One thing is certain: on euthanasia and assisted suicide, we will never be finished.

The Panels interim report is likely to be made public in the next few weeks.

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

Read more:

Australia Pushes Euthanasia Even Before Legalizing It - LifeNews.com

Submissions against euthanasia shatter assumptions

77% of submissions to Parliaments Health Select Committee are opposed to changing the law on assisted suicide and euthanasia, an analysis found.

The Voluntary Euthanasia Society touted that the Health Select Committee received a record 21,533 submissions on the issue, indicating intense public interest in a potential law change, says Rene Joubert, executive officer of Euthanasia-Free NZ. By their own logic, the results of this analysis demonstrate an overwhelming opposition to a law change.

When New Zealanders are given the opportunity to engage with the issue, as opposed to merely responding to a single poll question, most support the current legislation. This is certainly our experience when interacting with people all over the country.

The public are understandably concerned that the legalisation of assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia poses risks to vulnerable people, which is why advocates propose safeguards. However, these safeguards are unenforceable in practice.

Polls often elicit a knee-jerk reaction, especially when the questions are emotive or leading, such as referring to a painful condition. In reality nowadays, terminally ill Kiwis do not need to die in pain. A poll question about euthanasia for pain is inappropriate.

As the authors of the January 2017 NZMJ study admitted, the item in our study included the terms painful, incurable disease and request, which may have influenced participants to express increased support for euthanasia.

The Care Alliance analysed 21,277 submissions, excluding duplicates and a small number that could not be coded. An independent research company reviewed a sample of the coded submissions and concluded with at least 95% confidence that the overall classification percentages are accurate within no more than 0.4% variation.

The results of the full analysis shatter assumptions about public attitudes to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The assumption that the high number of submissions demonstrate overwhelming support for a law change:

The analysis found that 77.1 % of submissions (16,411) were opposed to a law change, 19.5 % (4,142) were in favour, and 3.4 % (724) were neutral or unclear on this issue.

The assumption that support of legalisation is secular and opposition to legalisation is based on religious beliefs:

63.6 % of submissions (13,539) oppose a law change and also make no reference to religion. Only 18.5% of submissions (3,934) support a law change and also make no reference to religion.

There are religiously motivated people on both sides of the debate. 14.8 % of submissions included religious arguments. The majority of these (13.5% of the total) oppose a law change, and 208 submissions (0.93% of the total) support a law change.

The assumption that submissions opposing a law change are mostly one-liners:

About 44% of submissions in opposition are between two lines and a page. Even if submissions of a certain length were to be discounted, the submissions opposing a law change would still outnumber those supporting a law change in other length categories.

The Health Select Committee conducted an investigation into ending ones life in New Zealand, in response to a petition by former MP Hon Maryan Street and 8,974 others in June 2015 requesting Parliament to investigate fully public attitudes towards the introduction of legislation which would permit medically-assisted dying in the event of a terminal illness or an irreversible condition which makes life unbearable.

After extensive media coverage about the investigation, especially during January 2016, the Committee processed 21,435 written submissions, a record number of unique submissions received on any issue to date. These, and subsequent supplementary submissions, are published on Parliaments website.

In August 2016 Dr Jane Silloway Smith analysed a random sample of these submissions and found that 78% were opposed to changing the law while 22% were in favour. The 16000voices.org.nz campaign was launched to highlight some submissions in video and written form.

ENDS

Scoop Media

Continue reading here:

Submissions against euthanasia shatter assumptions | Scoop News - Scoop.co.nz (press release)

MILAN, Italy (ChurchMilitant.com) - Italian prosecutors are ruling that Marco Cappato, an assisted suicide activist, did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights when he helped Fabiano Antoniani commit suicide in Switzerland in February.

Antoniani became a quadriplegic after a car accident in 2014 and had been seeking, since then, to be able to commit suicide. Cappato, a member of the Radical Party and an outspoken right-to-die activist, drove Antoniani to Switzerland in February where he self-administered a lethal dose of medication.

Twenty-four hours later, Cappato went to a police station in Milan, claiming he broke the law and turned himself in. Some critics suggest he was merely doing it to bring attention to his cause and that authorities had no interest in charging him with a crime.

Cappato told members of the press outside the police station, "If there will be an opportunity to defend before a judge what I've done, I can do it in the name of constitutional principles of freedom and fundamental responsibilities that are stronger than a penal code written in the Fascist era."

In Italian law, once a person is placed under investigation by authorities or in this case, turns himself in for a crime, prosecutors must examine the accusations to determine if charges are to be filed. Prosecutors concluded on May 2 that he did not violate Antoniani's "right to life," claiming assisted suicide doesn't violate the law "in the case of terminal illness or serious suffering, unbearable for the patient."

A judge must still make a final determination, and Cappato can still be charged according to article 580 of the Italian criminal code which directs, "Anyone who causes others to suicide or reinforces the others about suicide or in any way facilitates the execution, shall be punished, whether suicide occurs, by imprisonment from five to twelve years."

Switzerland, however, is not part of the European Union and assisted suicide is legal there. The situation is serving as a flashpoint to reignite the battle over whether assisted suicide should be legalized in Italy.

In April, the Italian House voted to allow a patient to refuse treatment under certain conditions, but it must still pass the Senate.

Cappato has accompanied other Italians to Switzerland for suicide. On April 19, he and Mina Welby, another right-to-die activist, assisted in the death of another Italian from Tuscany. They are both under investigation for that case as well. It's not know how the judgment of Milan's prosecutors will affect that case.

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

Like our work? Support us with a donation.

Go here to read the rest:

Italian Prosecutors Declare Euthanasia Activist Didn't Violate 'Right to Life' - Church Militant