Daily Archives: February 24, 2024

At the start of February both Dries van Agt, a Catholic former Dutch prime minister, and his wife chose to die together through euthanasia.

Married for 70 years, both Van Agt and his wife, Eugenie, were ill and 93 years old at the time of theirs deaths that are part of a small but growing trend in theNetherlandsfor duo euthanasia, reports the Guardian.

It notes that while still rare, the collective euthanasia of couples was first highlighted in a 2020review of all euthanasia cases in the country, when 26 people were granted euthanasia also known as assisted suicide at the same time as a partner. In 2021 the number was 32 and in 2022 had increased to 58.

Van Agt was prime minister between 1977 and 1982 and the first leader of the Christian Democratic Appeal party. According to Dutch media, Van Agt may have been a Catholic but always chose his own path, the Guardian reports.

Van Agt had never fully recovered from a 2019 brain haemorrhage and both he and his wife were very ill and couldnt go without one another, Gerard Jonkman,director of The Rights Forum which Van Agt set up in his later, more left-leaning years, the Guardian says told broadcaster NOS.

The Rights Forum is a high-level network of former ministers and professors of international law who have joined forces to promote a just and durable solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, says the organisations website.

Elke Swart, spokesperson for the Expertisecentrum Euthanasie, which the Guardian says grants theeuthanasia wishof about 1,000 people a year in the Netherlands which critics of euthanasia policy would argue equates to facilitating the suicides of more than 1,000 people each year told the Guardian that any couples requests for assisted death were tested against strict requirements individually rather than together.

Interest in this is growing, but it is still rare, Swart says. It is pure chance that two people are suffering unbearably with no prospect of relief at the same timeand that they both wish for euthanasia.

Euthanasia has been legal in the Netherlands since 2006. It is permitted undersix conditions/circumstances, the Guardian reports,including unbearable suffering, no prospect of relief and a long-held, independent wish for death that must be verified by a second specialist. Most cases are carried out by the family doctor at home.

Although couples amount to a very small percentage of the deaths by euthanasia in the Netherlands 8,720 cases, or 5.1 per cent of all Dutch assisted deaths in 2022 Fransien van ter Beek, who chairs theNVVEpro-euthanasia foundation, said that many more people express the wish to die as a couple but it does not happen very often because it is not an easy path.

In 2023, the Netherlands decided to widen its euthanasia regulations to include the possibility of doctors assisting in the death of terminally ill children aged between one and 12, the Guardianreports.

Both the UK and Ireland are experiencing sustained pushes by a mixture of lobbyists, celebrities and politicians for an expansion in euthanasia policy by the State.

During his 2023 Christmas homily, the Bishop of Shrewsburywarned against renewed attempts to change UK law to allow doctors to help their patients to commit suicide.

Critics of euthanasia/assisted suicide cite what is happening in Cananda, where numbers of assisted deaths sanctioned by the State, especially among the most vulnerable, are rising rapidly. The countrys Catholic bishops are issuing urgent warnings about the determination of the State to expand the countrys euthanasia policy to include the mentally ill.

Photo: British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher talking to her Dutch counterpart Dries van Agt during a meeting at The Hague, 9 February 1981. (Photo by Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images.)

View original post here:

Death of Catholic former Dutch prime minister highlights 'duo euthanasia' trend in Netherlands - Catholic Herald Online

On February 5, 2024, former Dutch Prime Minister Dries van Agt died holding hands with his wife Eugenie in his hometown of Nijmegen. Both were 93; the elderly couple chose to die by euthanasia. The Rights Forum, an organization founded by van Agt, released a statement on February 9: He died together and hand in hand with his beloved wife Eugenie van Agt-Krekelberg with whom he was together for more than seventy years, and whom he always continued to refer to as my girl. According to the non-profits director, they couldnt live without each other.

Unsurprisingly for a couple of advanced age, the van Agts had experienced health difficulties in the past several years, with the former prime minister suffering a brain hemorrhage in 2019 while delivering a speech on behalf of the Palestinian cause, to which he devoted the last two decades of his life. Press reports did not disclose his wifes challenges, but instead emphasized that they wanted to die together in what is colloquially referred to as duo euthanasiawhen a couple receives lethal injections simultaneously.

Andreas Dries van Agt served as prime minister of the Netherlands from 1977 until 1982; throughout his career, he served as both a leader of the Catholic Peoples Party (KVP) and the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA). In 1999, after a visit to Israel, van Agt began advocating for the PalestiniansThe Rights Forum advocates a just and sustainable Dutch and European policy regarding the Palestine/Israel issue. A joint statement released by King Willem-Alexander, Queen Mxima, and Princess Beatrix praised his administrative responsibility in a turbulent time and his striking personality and colorful style.

Notably, many obituaries and press reports expended great effort to portray the couples duo euthanasia as a banal bit of information, with some headlines stating that the van Agts had passed away, declining to pass judgment on the joint suicide-by-doctor and normalizing the Dutch euthanasia regime as routine. A few decades agowhen van Agt was prime minister, for examplean elderly statesman and his wife committing suicide together with the assistance of a doctor would have horrified the country. Now, it is portrayed as a peaceful sendoffa downright Dutch way of doing things.

That may well be the case. On April 1, 2002, the Netherlands became the first country in Europe since Nazi Germany to legalize euthanasia. Since then, the Dutch euthanasia regime has persistently expanded: in 2004, the Groningen Policy laid out the framework for euthanizing infants (who cannot consent); and, the rules have since been expanded to permit euthanasia for all children. Dutch people have been euthanized for alcoholism, blindness, depression, tinnitus, and even dementiain that case, the woman could not remember having asked for euthanasia and had to be physically held down for the lethal injection.

There have been a number of couples who have chosen to die together by euthanasia over the past several years. One particularly high-profile case featured a healthy UK couple, and the former prime minister and his wife may be part of a trend. As the New York Post reported: Duo euthanasia, or two people receiving a fatal injection simultaneously, is still relatively rare in the Netherlands but is slowly gaining more popularity Twenty-nine couples opted for the paired death in 2022, up from 16 who chose it in 2021 and the 13 pairs the year before. In 2018, a Canadian couple opted for duo euthanasia; they did cheery interviews about the decision scarcely a week before they died by lethal injection, also hand in hand.

Unlike so many other euthanasia storiessuch as those coming out of Canada of latethe duo euthanasia of the van Agts does not appear to have been the result of any undue pressure. However, it is a potent example of where collective de-Christianization has taken us. For duo euthanasia or any doctor-assisted suicide to be simply another end of life option, fundamental orthodox Christian principles must be rejected or simply not considered. The elderly Canadian couple who opted to die stated that they looked forward to the moment when they could fly away together. Ultimately, that characterization is a theological onea deeply held belief about what comes after death. Some who choose death believe that nothingness awaits them; many others express vague, spiritual views about what comes next. All assume that previous generations were wrong, and that there is no Judge on the other side of the veil.

Read more from the original source:

The Deadly Trend of Double Euthanasia The European Conservative - The European Conservative

(OSV News) --A Canadian woman is relying on her faith, education and personal experience to end euthanasia -- and to encourage hope amid end-of-life suffering in her nation.

"Canada deserves to be a warning sign to the world of what road not to go down," activist Amanda Achtman told OSV News. "It pains my heart, but it also motivates me every day to try to think about how many people are going to be lost, and whose lives will be cut short prematurely, before we finally wake up to the moral urgency that we have here."

The 32-year-old Calgary native is the founder of the Dying to Meet You project, through which she aims to change the cultural conversation around suffering and death by writing, speaking and creating short films featuring individuals who find reasons to live amid serious illness.

Achtman's work directly counters Canada's law on "medical assistance in dying," or MAID, which since 2016 has exempted from criminal charges doctors and nurse practitioners who either directly administer or prescribe medication to cause a person's death at their own request. The law includes protocols for ensuring a patient requesting MAID is fully informed and freely consents.

On Feb. 5, Archbishop Christian Lpine of Montreal sought to protect a Catholic palliative care home from being compelled to offer MAID, submitting a Feb. 5 appeal to the Quebec Superior Court that asked for an immediate stay on application of a June 2023 amendment to Canada's Act Respecting End-of-Life Care. The amendment states that "palliative care hospices may not exclude medical aid in dying from the care they offer."

Achtman, a Catholic, said her mission was inspired in large part by being raised in a Jewish-Catholic family -- and by accompanying her grandfather, a Polish Jew, through his experience of dying.

At age 18, she traveled to Germany and Poland to study key places in the Holocaust, the 1933-1945 systematic murder of 6 million European Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.

"A lot of my education started there when I was traveling to these sites and confronting the history of Nazi euthanasia and eugenics," she said, citing the outspoken witness of Blessed Clemens August von Galen, bishop (later cardinal) of Mnster, against the Nazi's euthanasia program.

"I've always been fascinated by the stories of the Righteous among the Nations," said Achtman, referencing the honor conferred by Yad Vashem, the world Holocaust remembrance center, on non-Jews who worked to save Jews from Nazi atrocities. "And so this was the ethical education that animated and fired up my moral imagination."

When her ailing grandfather came to live with her during her high school and university years, "the (Canadian) government was talking about legalizing euthanasia for those whose death was deemed reasonably foreseeable," Achtman said. "And anyone who has an 80- or 90-year-old in their life knows that that means them. I immediately had the sense that this concerned me personally."

Achtman balances heart and head in her work, drawing on her family life and on her advanced degrees, including a master's in philosophical studies from the Catholic University of Lublin, Poland, and coursework in the licentiate program in Judaic studies and Jewish-Christian relations offered by the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. She has served as the senior adviser to a member of parliament working to prevent the expansion of euthanasia to persons living with a disability or mental illness. In addition, Achtman partners with Canadian Physicians for Life on ethics education and cultural engagement.

Achtman told OSV News she believed that the impetus behind MAID lies partly in what Pope Francis has called a "false sense of compassion" for the suffering.

"Canadians are known for being very nice and compassionate. And we do have a lot of things going for us, but sometimes that's our demise," she said. "There's a sort of decadence that leads us to not be able to contend with suffering."

At the same time, she said, "There's a whole other demographic of those who are living in poverty, struggling with addictions, have suffered the trauma of suicide in their family. And we know that there's a sort of reciprocity between suicide and euthanasia perpetuating within families."

Achtman said that MAID has "definitely been driven" in Canada over the past four decades by the Toronto-based euthanasia lobbying organization Dying with Dignity, founded in 1980 by a registered nurse named Marilynne Seguin.

The organization "has been working to relieve unwanted suffering," but "it's sinister to end suffering by ending the sufferer with a lethal injection," said Achtman, referring to one of the methods used in medically assisted dying.

According to a 2022 listing posted online by the group, pharmaceutical manufacturer Pfizer is listed among the donors supporting Dying with Dignity. However, a Pfizer media relations representative told OSV News that "Pfizer is not a corporate donor to this organization."

Achtman added that "the promise of an escape from suffering has been romanticized by (Canadian) state media," specifically the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

While journalistic standards typically call for suicide to be responsibly covered (with many news agencies having formal or informal policies against reporting about it) -- out of concern for what researchers call a "contagion effect" that could trigger additional suicides -- "our state broadcaster has every few days been publicizing and romanticizing stories of euthanasia that glorify premature death," said Achtman.

On Feb. 11, the CBC posted a first-person article by Kelley Korbin headlined, "My dad's assisted death was a parting gift. I wish I'd said so in his obituary."

OSV News asked CBC for clarification of its coverage of suicide and the network responded that "MAID coverage is a news category in itself, where CBC News reports on the ongoing public conversation around a specific way of dying."

"We include a diverse range of perspectives from medical experts, political actors and commentators, and people sharing personal stories," Chuck Thompson, head of public affairs of the CBC wrote to OSV News.

Achtman told OSV News that Canada's Indigenous communities -- whom the government itself tacitly admits have not been sufficiently engaged in discussions of MAID -- "have a lot to teach the wider Canadian culture about reverence for the elderly."

While some Indigenous leaders have supported MAID, in 2016, Indigenous Liberal MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette announced he planned to vote against the legislation, expressing concerns over its "ripple effect" among his Attawapiskat community.

"If grandma, grandfather decides they had enough in life if they weren't able to carry on, why should I carry on? If they weren't strong enough, why should I be strong enough?" asked Ouellette.

In contrast, said Achtman, "Pope Francis has been saying in his catechesis on the meaning and value of old age that the alliance between old and young will save the human family."

She said that "the top kind of suffering that leads people to request euthanasia by their own admission" is typically "the loss of ability to participate in meaningful life activities.

"Canadians are by and large asking for euthanasia for existential reasons, not physical pain management reasons," said Achtman.

Ultimately, ending euthanasia is "an act of love," she said.

"Vulnerability is not a pejorative word, not if you have a right view of the human person," said Achtman. "Mounting resistance to a person's suicidal ideation says, 'I care about you too much to let you concede to this euthanasia temptation. I will fight for you.' And sometimes that resistance is all that a person needs and is waiting for."

- - -

Gina Christian is a multimedia reporter for OSV News. Follow her on X at @GinaJesseReina.

Read more from the original source:

Ending euthanasia is 'an act of love,' says Canadian activist. Published Feb. 20 2024. World. - The Pilot

By Carlos Gutierrez*

Most attendees will never forget that football match. It was Saturday, September 10, and Deportivo Independiente Medellin (DIM) and Santa Fe were facing each other. It was memorable, not because of what happened on the pitch, but for what was going on in the bleachers. Sebastian Pamplona, a young man with a terminal illness, went to the stadium to fulfill his last wish: watching the DIM (his favorite team) play before being euthanized. Thousands of fans and players chanted his name in deeply poignant moments.

Colombia is a pioneer in decriminalizing euthanasia in Latin America. The law authorized it, back in 2015, for patients with terminal illnesses. Physicians must undertake the procedure with prior authorization of the respective Interdisciplinary-Scientific Committee to Die with Dignity.

Aside from Sebastians story, the debate to decriminalize and regulate euthanasia is back in the news in Latin America. In early February, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador decriminalized euthanasia in its active form, after a woman, 42, Paola Roldan, made a plea on social media to request the legalization of assisted death, in August 2023.

Three years ago, Paola was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and she has been immobilized for more than six months, without chances to improve. Those being her circumstances, she recruited a team of lawyers to demand her right to die with dignity to the Court. Along the process, she became a symbol of the fight to decriminalize euthanasia not only in Ecuador but in Latin America.

Although etymologically euthanasia meansgood death, it refers to ending the life of a person with an incurable or irreversible disease. It implies administering painless means to avoid the continuation of grave physical suffering. Oftentimes, it takes place in clinical contexts in which a third party, usually a doctor or group of doctors, is in charge of performing the procedure. The third party sets in motion a chain of events leading to the final outcome, controlling the result at all times, explains Carlos Molina-Ricaurte, of Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia, in a chapter of the book Las identidades analizadas a traves de las segregaciones historico-culturales.

Globally, a mere nine nations have decriminalized and legalized the intervention. The Netherlands walked that path first, in April 2002. A month later, Belgium followed, and so did Luxembourg in 2009. In 2016, Canada joined them, and New Zealand in 2020. Spain legislated on it in July 2021, and Portugal in 2023. And In Australia, euthanasia is allowed only in the state of New South Wales, which authorized it in 2022.

In the United States, from 1997 to 2017, ten states legislated on assisted suicide for people over 18 who had a life prognosis shorter than six months. Unlike euthanasia, assisted suicide requires no intervention by a third party. It is defined as the action of a person suffering an irreversible disease to terminate his or her life. To do so, he or she has to have the support of practitioners that provide knowledge and means. Since 2020, it is not prosecuted in Germany and in Italy, where it is admitted in very special cases. Austria and Switzerland consider it only if the motive is not against the law.

In 2022, Colombia decriminalized assisted suicide for people with grave or incurable diseases. That same year, Victor Escobar, a 60-year-old driver, was the first Colombian to be euthanized without having an illness in the terminal stage. He had had cerebrovascular accidents, as well as obstructive pulmonary disease and hypertension. His battle opened doors for patients behind me who wish to die with dignity, Victor said in a farewell video published by the newspaper El Tiempo.

In Cuba, last December, the National Assembly of Peoples Power passed a new law by which it admits the right of people to die with dignity by arranging the decisions for the end of their lives, which may include the limitation of therapy, continuous or palliative care and valid conducts that put an end to their lives. The law, however, will only become effective when the legislature passes the regulation for its application.

Eneyda Suer, Mexican professor at Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Occidente (ITESO), thinks that euthanasia should be legal and not just decriminalized, because that would open the door to serious, strict and dutiful protocols. Otherwise, it will continue taking place surreptitiously, carelessly and without adequate protocol. In his text, Molina-Ricaurte admits that in the case of Colombia, neither euthanasia nor assisted suicide have been sufficiently regulated. It is a fair demand to legislate on the matter.

Mexicos General Health Law forbids euthanasia, assisted suicide and mercy killing. However, there is the option of anticipated will, a legal figure through which someone with a terminal disease, or a forecast of one, may plan treatment and care for the end of life. One of the purposes of this resource is to respect the patients will, as well as guaranteeing a natural death in dignified conditions, says the Mexican Health Secretariat.

One of the arguments in favor of legalization is the right to make choices pertaining to our own lives. Neither assisted suicide nor euthanasia harm the rights of third parties. And we all know, as the popular adage says: my rights end where yours begin, states Marina Arias, lawyer of the Ministry of Public Defense of Paraguay.

Discussions around euthanasia are full of complexities and myths. Topics that have to do with morality are usually taboo. Theres abortion, euthanasia, surrogacy, homosexuality Suer says. From her point of view, euthanasia should be legislated because it is about coexisting. And in coexisting, we must admit that there are some facts that, albeit unpleasant, occur. So, why not legalize and create protocols to effectively respect a person?

Some studies address the influence of religion. It is clear that religiousness is negatively associated with accepting euthanasia or assisted suicude. As explained by Norma Ordoez and a team of researchers at Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM), in the article entitled Exploracion del discurso de los enfermos cronicos sobre la legalizacion de la muerte asistida.

But this brings upon controversy. Miguel Pastorino, PhD in philosophy and director of Centro Core at Universidad Catolica de Uruguay, considers it a myth to argue that the main stance against euthanasia is religiously driven. If you read documents by Catholic bishops, and I just read the one written by the bishops of Ecuador, their arguments appeal to human rights instead of to religion. The question is: Is it a human right to demand induced death? Or, as it is almost everywhere thus far, is it a human rights violation to end someones life even though he or she asked for it? In other words, what we have are two conflicting points of view on human rights, he underscores.

Lawyer Arias claims that at the moment of legalizing, the right that would prevail the most would be the right of autonomy. So, to what extent are we allowed to make decisions about ourselves? she wonders. She alleges that the existence of laws that criminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide means that the State is meddling on when a person can decide over his or her body. She also supports that mental illnesses should be taken into account when legalizing euthanasia.

Pastorino adds that it is a myth to confuse euthanasia with palliative or terminal sedation. It is not an undercover form of euthanasia, as many people think, he says. It is about inducing a coma for the personal to die naturally, but unconsciously. It simply makes death less atrocious, it makes it peaceful. That is ethically correct. It is legal, he explains.

For Pastorino, the law in favor of euthanasia allows physicians to kill patients. The problem is that it has been sweetened and romanticized. He believes the only argument for it is compassion towards the patients suffering, but that can be alleviated with proper palliative care. He highlights that, in that regard, there is a problem of social injustice that is frequently overlooked, since many people dont even have access to palliative care.

In an interview with the Uruguayan radio show En perspectiva, Spanish oncologist and palliative care physician Enric Benito talked about his experience with Fernando Sureda, former manager of the Uruguayan Football Association. In 2018, after being diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, he requested an euthanasia to the Uruguayan legal system, to no avail. Due to the pandemic, Benito virtually accompanied Sureda in his last days.

The documentary Hay una puerta ahi is a compilation of videos of those meetings, and it shows Sureda reconsidered the possibility of euthanasia. Based on this experience, the persons real intention is to put an end to suffering. And it is more elegant, more professional, and more humane, to put an end to suffering instead of ending a life.

Gerardo Perez-Mendoza, researcher of Laboratorio de Genetica at Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, proposes considering the opinion of physicians. He thinks that many resist doing it because it is against their professional principles. Their oath dictates that they must seek to save or alleviate the patient.

In 2020, the Medical Association of Uruguay conducted a poll that revealed doctors in that country had a very favorable attitude towards the approval of legislation to enable euthanasia in its active form. In 62% of the cases, they responded in favor with total certainty.

In any case, the role of doctors would have to be closely monitored to avoid the likelihood of malpractice. In a text published in Prudencia Uruguay. En defensa de la dignidad humana, Carlos Maria Schroeder, honorary professor of Universidad de la Republica, refers to an official report of the Canadian Medical Association in which 120 Belgian nurses admitted to having performed euthanasia without the patients request. He states that in countries where it has been approved, the practice of palliative care has truly decreased: the medical community has been strongly deterred from pursuing that type of care, in the face of mounting unruly, and oftentimes, unjustified cases of euthanasia.

Most experts interviewed for this article agree that many of the controversies on the matter are among healthy people and at theoretical level. There arent many studies with people living with diseases in the terminal stage. People who really wish to be euthanized are not in conditions to manifest their intentions or to sign documents. Normally, they realize they wish for it when they are in a terminal stage and in a lot of pain, Suer says.

The stance of sick patients on this topic is relevant to have enough elements aimed at a prospective regulation, from the bioethics, medical and legal perspectives, UNAM researchers expound.

The topic requires serious analyses and dialogue between professionals from different disciplines. In the meantime, Pastorino recommends moving forward on better palliative care, on laws of anticipated will, on health care, on providing support to patients in pain and their families. For this expert, whose thesis in bioethics was on euthanasia, the discussions tend to be in black and white, in heated defenses for or against. And, well, this is not a football match.

Each week, CONNECTAS, the Latin American journalism platform, publishes an analysis of relevant events in the Americas. If you are interested in this information, click hereeste enlace.

*Member of the editorial board at CONNECTAS

Read more here:

To Suffer or To Live: The Dilemma of Euthanasia - CONNECTAS - Connectas

On Tuesday we publishedthe story of Joe Mudukiza - a man in his late twenties battling sickle cell disease. The excruciating pain he experiences on a regular basis has had a debilitating effect on his life, to the point where he has considered requesting assisted suicide to end his suffering. Joe is a father of six and the constant agony has made it difficult for him to lead a normal life and provide for his family.

After the article was published, many Kenyans expressed an interest in understanding the procedure and its legal status in Kenya.

Like Joe, many Kenyans are facing chronic illness and considering options that are unimaginable to most. This raises crucial questions about euthanasia, also known as assisted dying: what exactly is the practice? Where does it stand legally and ethically in Kenya, and which countries have legalised it?

We spoke to Dennis M. Nkarichia, a constitutional lawyer specialising in medical law.

That depends on the context in which it is used. At a basic level, euthanasia is any deliberate intervention in a person's medical trajectory to alleviate pain and must be provided by a licensed medical service provider. If not, it becomes murder or manslaughter. If the person carries it out on themselves, it would be classified as suicide.

There are three types of assisted suicide. There's voluntary euthanasia, which is the deliberate ending of a person's life at their request and is legal in a growing number of countries. This happens when the patient is conscious and able to give informed consent to the medical procedure.

The second is involuntary euthanasia, which occurs when a patient is unable to give consent. In some jurisdictions it is permitted in certain circumstances, either in an active or passive form. You may have given someone a power of attorney and they can decide what's in your best interests because they know your social background, your religious background and your value system.

The third is involuntary euthanasia, which is carried out without the patient's consent or against his or her wishes. The most common form is capital punishment, where the state carries out the death sentence after convicting someone of a capital crime.

The difference is legal. It is not the outcome, because the outcome is the same - the ending of human life. The difference lies in how consent is obtained (if any) and the circumstances in which the end of life is carried out.

Medical protocols depend on the patient's medical condition and the laws of the country. If it is a voluntary decision, the first step is to assess the patient's mental state to ensure that the decision is in their best interests and that they understand the implications of the decision. The doctor then determines the appropriate prescription to be given to the patient to end their life. The patient then injects or ingests the medication and euthanasia is carried out.

In the US, some state laws allow involuntary euthanasia for comatose or medically assisted patients. In such cases, the first step is to determine the patient's ability to recover and the extent to which they will be able to regain a dominant percentage of their neurological and physical function. Once this has been determined, they will also consider whether the patient has what we call an Advanced Directive for Refusal of Treatment (ADRT).

This means that if a patient has requested it in an emergency, the doctor will know that they've asked not to be resuscitated. Even countries that allow it have strict safeguards to prevent abuse. These safeguards, which often include multiple assessments and independent reviews, aim to ensure that patients make informed and voluntary decisions, free from coercion or undue influence.

Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and all Australian states. Some states in the USA allow physician-assisted suicide, in which the patient self-administer medication, but not active euthanasia. In Portugal and New Zealand, legislation has been passed but is awaiting regulation. No African country currently allows euthanasia.

There hasn't been any substantive attempt to change the euthanasia laws in Kenya, and they are shaped by what I would call the country's Judeo-Christian religious background.

The current constitution has created a two-tier approach where the right to life is not absolute and secondly, if there's legislation that provides for the restriction of that right to life, then that legislation is permissible and constitutional.

It also goes on to provide for the medical exception for pregnant women, but in a specific situation where the life of the pregnant mother is in danger and a competent medical practitioner determines that it would be better to have an abortion to preserve the life of the mother. Then abortion is permitted. This is a form of permitted involuntary euthanasia for the foetus. However, many people regard life as sacrosanct and would not want to pursue euthanasia because of the slippery slope argument.

The first thing we have to remember is that in the Kenyan education system, locally trained doctors take the Hippocratic oath; a binding commitment that they will not kill a patient.

Every country has this code of conduct in its statutes.

In particular, the difference between euthanasia and murder is legal because the effect is the same.

Take the case of 2019, Republic vs. Emmanuel Kiprotich Sigei & Irene Sigei, where the parents of a one-and-a-half-year-old child were convicted of murder. Their defence was that their child was crawling and sickly with flu. The court rejected the defence and sentenced them to 15 years in prison.

In contrast, in the South African case of Stransham-Ford v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and others, Mr Ford petitioned the court for an order allowing his doctors to assist him to end his life. Like Kenya, South Africa does not have an explicit law permitting euthanasia. But by arguing that the right to life entitled him to die with dignity, Mr Ford persuaded the High Court to grant his application for physician-assisted death. He died while awaiting the verdict.

If you compare the two cases, you will find that in both countries there is no law that explicitly allows euthanasia. Secondly, you cannot actively assist someone else to commit euthanasia if it is not expressly permitted. Had the Kenyan couple sought a medical opinion and then applied for a court order, their case would have sought to draw parallels with the South African case and arguments in favour of promoting the right to life as including the right to die with dignity.

It's called death tourism. Generally, you don't need much documentation, depending on the country you visit. Usually all you need is a diagnosis of incurable and terminal illness.

Hypothetically, if you travel to countries that allow it, it's just to see a doctor. Once you go to the doctor, they will assess you and determine your medical condition, which is always the first step because it's a criminal offence to kill someone.

Once they have determined that your cognitive functions are in order, they move on to the second step. This involves writing a prescription that will cause minimal pain. The patient then takes the medication to achieve the expected result. This is the most common.

The legal or financial hurdles vary from country to country.

From a legal and ethical point of view, what are some important considerations for someone considering euthanasia abroad, especially in places where it's illegal, such as Kenya?

From a legal perspective, if the country does not have an explicit law or regulatory framework allowing physician-assisted death, then any involvement in the issue is legally questionable. On a strict interpretation of the law, any involvement is potentially an accessory to murder, manslaughter or assisted suicide.

One must therefore consider that the interaction should, strictly speaking, be hypothetical or otherwise as a discourse that seeks to explore the issue. To make specific and detailed recommendations or suggestions could be construed as an active step in the euthanasia process. It would potentially open one up to the charge of aiding and abetting a criminal offence.

The crux of the matter is clearly whether the right to life includes the right to die with dignity.

Read the original post:

All you need to know about euthanasia - Nation

CINCINNATI, Feb. 21, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- Home with Dignity, a leading mobile in-home euthanasia service for pets, is now offering Cincinnati pet owners a compassionate alternative to traditional veterinary clinics when saying goodbye to their beloved pets. Founded on principles of empathy and compassion, Home with Dignity provides a serene environment for pets to peacefully pass away in the comfort of their homes.

Their mission is to honor the bond between pets and their owners with compassion and dignity. Equipped with advanced medical amenities and staffed by experienced veterinarians, Home with Dignity ensures a gentle and empathetic end-of-life experience for pets and their owners.

In addition to euthanasia services, Home with Dignity offers comprehensive support for pet owners facing end-of-life decisions, grief resources, tele-advice, and assistance with aftercare options. Since its launch, Home with Dignity has received praise from clients for its compassionate and personalized approach to pet care.

"Making the decision to say goodbye to your pet is one of the hardest choices pet owners have to make," said Dr. Pam Kloepfer, Lead Veterinarian at Home With Dignity in Cincinnati. "My goal is to make that experience as comfortable as I can for the pet owner and their pet, and part of that is choosing to grieve at home."

Pet owners who might need help knowing when it is time may also reach out to the Home With Dignity team for help assessing their quality of life. In partnership with the Home With Dignity team, every pet owner can feel more supported in making the best decision for their pet.

For more information, visit https://homewithdignity.comor contact our Care Coordination Team at (513) 993-6311 or via email at [emailprotected].

About Home with Dignity: Founded by Dr. Jim Humphries in 2015, Home with Dignity is a mobile in-home euthanasia service for pets that operates in over ten cities nationwide. With a strong commitment to providing compassionate end-of-life care, Home with Dignity understands the unique bond between pets and their owners. The service strives to offer a peaceful and dignified farewell in the comforting and familiar environment of the pet's own home.

Media Contact: Kim Johannpeter | Director of Operations Home with Dignity [emailprotected] (217) 710-5441

SOURCE Home With Dignity

Excerpt from:

Home with Dignity Enters Cincinnati, Ohio, Revolutionizing In-Home Euthanasia for Pets - PR Newswire