Category Archives: Euthanasia

The Colombian Martha Seplveda, in an image of her social networks.

Eighteen days after the date she had chosen to die and after a cancellation that became a national debate in Colombia, a judge has ordered the euthanasia of Martha Seplveda, the 51-year-old woman who suffers from a degenerative disease. The ruling also requires that the clinic must coordinate with Seplveda the date and time to resume the procedure within the next 48 hours.

The 20 civil court of Medelln assured that the IPS Incodol violated Seplvedas right to die with dignity, subjected her to live an unworthy life and ordered them to comply with what was established by the interdisciplinary scientific committee to die with dignity, in the minutes issued in the past August 6 of this year, through which the guardian is informed and recognized that she meets the requirements to exercise her right to die with dignity through euthanasia .

Seplveda was going to be the first woman in Colombia to access euthanasia without being a terminal patient, thanks to a recent ruling by the Constitutional Court, which extended this right to non-terminal people who, because of them, have intense physical or mental suffering for bodily injury or serious and incurable diseases .

Exultant, the woman gave an interview to journalist Juan David Laverde, from Caracol Televisin and after the news, which went viral, a scientific committee of the clinic decided to reverse the decision it had already authorized.

On the night of Friday, October 8, with a letter that slipped through the door of the house where Seplveda and his son, Federico Redondo, live, they announced that the procedure had been canceled. The clinic argued that Martas disease had not progressed in the last three months and that she had a longer life expectancy than indicated before. However, a medical examination released by the portal La Silla Vaca revealed that he had a greater deterioration in gait and had lost strength in his upper limbs.

The last minute cancellation preceded by a statement from the Catholic Church asking the woman to reconsider her decision then generated a national debate that involved politicians and judicial authorities. With this ruling, the judge also recognized that it is up to each person to judge and define what type of suffering they consider incompatible with their idea of dignity. And it is not doctors, public opinion or the church who determine who suffers more or less, said Lucas Correa, who belongs to the Laboratory of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Desclab), which has several cases of euthanasia.

Join now MRT to follow all the news and read without limits

Subscribe here

At the time, the Ministry of Health took refuge in the fact that the latest ruling was not known in its entirety and that they had not been notified. The Constitutional Court responded by disseminating the sentence and urging the government of Ivn Duque to protect the right to die with dignity.

The current decision of the judge coincides with the request of the Ministry of Health before the Constitutional Court. Before that court, according to the local press, the government sent a list of questions asking for clarification of judgment C-233 of 2021, which expanded the right to euthanasia.

Marta Seplvedas lawyers who have celebrated that the justice has proved her right have delivered a statement on that point. Before a Ministry of Health that is not interested in protecting the right to die with dignity and invents barriers to hinder them, justice was served, Correa said.

The sentence added the lawyer must be applied directly and the ministry must reformulate resolution 971 immediately so that the health system has clear rules. Those who want to exercise their right to die with dignity should not be afraid to make it public, whoever exercises their right should never hide .

Subscribe here to the newsletter from MRT Amrica and receive all the informative keys of the current situation of the region

Disclaimer: This article is generated from the feed and not edited by our team.

Read more here:

A Colombian judge orders that Martha Seplveda be allowed to be euthanized | International - Market Research Telecast

Over the last eighteen months of the pandemic, we have seen a drastic increase in the number of patients entering critical care and requiring Life-Sustaining Treatments. Consequently, hospitals have had to facilitate end-of-life decisions when there is little or no scope for recovery. On February 17, 2020, the ICMR issued Consensus Guidelines on 'Do Not Attempt Resuscitation' with comprehensive protocols on when and how the doctors can refuse Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR). However, there is still a vacuum with respect to issues pertaining to terminating life support and allied issues. These developments have revived questions around the Right to die with dignity, especially in the context of terminally ill patients who choose to refuse life-saving treatments.

Jurisprudence

The jurisprudence around right to refuse treatment has evolved over the course of time. of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be deprived of her life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. It is trite that this Article contains, within it, the right to live with dignity.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Rathinam v. Union of India 1994, while recognising the right to die with dignity struck down Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (Attempt to commit suicide) as unconstitutional. However, this decision was subsequently overruled by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab 1996. The Supreme Court held that suicide, being an unnatural termination of one's life, is 'incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of - right to life'. However, the Supreme Court had left it open whether a terminally ill patient has the right to die with dignity. In Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India 2011, the question of legality of passive euthanasia was looked into and the Supreme Court reiterated that right to life does not include the right to die.

In the case of Common Cause v. Union of India 2018, the Supreme Court had an opportunity to deal with the issues pertaining to right to refuse treatment and the right to die with dignity. It was then that the concept of 'living will' as an 'Advanced Medical Directive' was introduced. The judgement in Common Cause v. Union of India 2018 goes on to recognise the right to die with dignity and how it can be exercised.

Right to Die with Dignity

Though the recognition of the right to die with dignity is a major development in jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has specified conditions on how this right can be interpreted. Firstly, it has been made clear that suicide and active euthanasia do not come within the ambit of right to die with dignity. Secondly, the judgement issues directions as to how a terminally ill patient could draft a "living will". Though the ICMR Guidelines takes note of the judgment in Common Cause v. Union of India 2018, there is no judicial endorsement, as yet, of Advance Medical Directives such as DNAR forms. Nevertheless, many hospitals have started accepting DNAR forms as per the ICMR Guidelines under medical best practices.

During the pandemic, there has been an increase in the number of patients who may not be saved by medical treatments and who would wish to give Advance Medical Directives as to withdrawal of Life Support or 'Do Not Resuscitate'. The legal sanctity of any such Advance Medical Directive is yet to receive judicial endorsement but nevertheless, it is a definitive step in the direction towards realisation of the Right to Die with Dignity. The Supreme Court has indicated the existence of a legislative vacuum in this regard and it is now up to the Houses of Parliament to enact a law and consequent rules to provide legal sanctity and authority to Advance Medical Directives so that this valuable right is comprehensively realised.

About The Authors: Manuraj Shunmugasundaram is Partner and Haripriya Venkatakrishnan is Intern with Ganesan and Manuraj Legal LLP.

Views are personal

Go here to read the rest:

Is There A Right To Die With Dignity? - Live Law - Indian Legal News

Were it to become law, the Assisted Dying Bill, presently receiving its second reading in the House of Lords, would fundamentally alter the balance between life and death in this country. The Bills purpose, according to its sponsor, the crossbench peer Baroness Meacher, is to enable adults who are terminally ill to be provided at their request with specified assistance to end their own life.

Unusually, this private members Bill has originated in the House of Lords; unless the Government decides to set aside time for debate, it will probably suffer its own assisted death when it reaches the House of Commons. It is probably also true to say that barely one in a hundred people is even aware that such crucial legislation, which would affect every one of us, might be in the pipeline. How would we feel if we woke up one day soon to find that doctors now had the power, not merely to heal us, but to kill us too?

Nevertheless, the Assisted Dying Bill has unleashed a torrent of public anguish about the question it is intended to address: should individuals or their families have the right to die in a manner and at a time of their choice? Perhaps inevitably, an ageing population places increasing pressure on doctors to provide a good death. For some, that may mean not merely exercising control over their treatment, but also over how and when to die. After all, the health service offers many things on demand that werent always available, from transgender surgery to abortion so why shouldnt we have euthanasia on the NHS, too? Yet this Bill ignores the wisdom of the ages about suicide, assisted or not. To be, or not to be: that is still the question. Though circumstances may have changed, the answer has not.

Debates in the Lords are almost invariably well-informed, because the Upper House is full of authorities from many fields, including medicine. Even so, like anyone else peers can be swayed by emotion as well as expertise. Last Fridays debate was electrified when Baroness Meacher read out a statement from the former Labour minister and social reformer Frank Field, now Lord Field of Birkenhead, in which he revealed that he had changed his mind in favour of her Bill. Lord Field added that he was suffering from terminal cancer and had recently been in a hospice. Such a dramatic intervention, coming from a distinguished statesman and devout Christian, was bound to appeal to consciences, both inside and outside the Palace of Westminster. (Full disclosure: I have been a friend and admirer of Lord Field since 1966, when he was the youngest parliamentary candidate in the country and I, aged eight, was his youngest canvasser.)

The cri de coeur of a dying man undoubtedly carries weight, but such a momentous change in the law must be based on hard evidence that it meets a real need and that the promised benefits outweigh any possible harm. In this case, such evidence as there is has been insufficient to persuade many, if not most, of those who are most knowledgeable about the terminally ill: those doctors and nurses who specialise in palliative care. Indeed, it is extraordinary that no research has apparently been published that compares, comprehensively and with enough objectivity to satisfy both sides, all the evidence from those countries that have legalised some form of euthanasia.

Perhaps the most informative document for readers with an open mind on this subject is a letter to the editor of The Times published today (unfortunately behind a paywall). It is signed by a long and eminent list of doctors and academics with decades of experience in palliative care for the terminally ill. They point to a lack of evidence that the suggested safeguards [in the Meacher Bill] are either effective or verifiable. Evidence from Oregon, since the US state passed its Death with Dignity Act in 1997, shows how assessment of capacity for assisted suicide is influenced by the individual values of assessing clinicians, something that is almost impossible to mitigate against.

These experts warn that patients who seek assisted suicide often suffer from significant psychosocial distress. The risk of coercion and abuse is therefore great. In Oregon, 53 per cent of patients who were helped to die gave as a reason that they were a burden on family, friends or carers. Pain and fear of pain were less frequently cited.

The evidence from Canada, the authors suggest, shows that such laws can actually make a good death less likely. Strains between patients and families, or fears of both that palliative care may hasten death, can all cause distress. For these reasons some Canadian hospices do not offer assisted suicide. Shockingly, however, these facilities have had their funding threatened or withdrawn.

We should pay careful attention to the medical practioners who actually look after the dying. If they see the Meacher Bill as unwise and unsafe, we should have very strong moral reasons and overwhelming evidence to override their judgement. Yet the philosophical and the practical case has yet to be made that we need to cross the line between palliative care that enables people to die naturally but without undue suffering, and active intervention to end their lives. Is it not too much to ask doctors to renounce the spirit of the Hippocratic oath first, do no harm for the sake of a right to die that for them amounts to a duty to kill? Are we confident that the safeguards included in the Bill will not be eroded over time, as assisted suicide becomes the default option rather than the exception? In the Netherlands, which legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2001, some four per cent of all deaths are by these means, not all of them voluntary.

The evidence surely suggests, rather, that we may be asking the wrong questions. If those who are nearing the end of life are very often suffering from psychosocial distress, depression or loneliness, are there not better ways to alleviate this suffering than by eliminating the sufferer? Doesnt a civilised society treat the symptoms, however severe, rather than invite patients to expedite their own demise? All the evidence suggests that assisted suicide is still the wrong answer to the wrong question.

Although it is true that this issue often divides people according to their most fundamental beliefs Baroness Meacher and her husband Lord Layard are humanists, while the Catholic and Anglican bishops oppose the Bill the decisive questions here are largely of a quite practical kind: how best to ease the passage from this life to whatever may lie beyond. Before we go down a legislative path from which there will be no return, let us be quite sure that we know where it will lead and that we are comfortable with the destination. The onus is surely on the proponents of the Bill to prove their case.

We are the only publication thats committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one thats needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.

Read more from the original source:

Is the Assisted Dying Bill still the wrong answer to the wrong question? - TheArticle

Thursday afternoon, Wolf Trap Animal Rescue, the MSE Foundation, and the Washington Capitals teamed up to bring the best boys and girls together for the annual Canine Calendar photoshoot.

All proceeds from the calendar go to Wolf Trap Animal Rescue, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that currently operates to facilitate means of transport, foster, and adoption of rescued pets. Their program works to rescue pets who are at risk of neglect, homelessness, and euthanasia from shelters & communities in states of the South.

To start, the newest Caps team pup Biscuit was front and center. He even got to meet Ovis dog, Blake!

Today's the day! @CapsPup will be doing his @Capitals #CapsCanineCalendar shoot with rescues from @WTARescue. Follow @MSEFndn all day to see behind the scenes photos It's gonna be PAW-some pic.twitter.com/PfGbzZ55jD

MSE Foundation (@MSEFndn) October 28, 2021

Let the photoshoot begin! @CapsPup is ready to go Good boy! @Capitals #CapsCanineCalendar pic.twitter.com/1mCzehKtE2

MSE Foundation (@MSEFndn) October 28, 2021

Ovis dog meeting @CapsPup!! pic.twitter.com/if2kbcxHjs

Scott Abraham (@Scott7news) October 28, 2021

Evgeny Kuznetsov and Dmitry Orlov had to do some dog wrangling.

Herding dogs is ruff! #CapsCanine @WTARescue @MSEFndn pic.twitter.com/s64CEQvLiS

Washington Capitals (@Capitals) October 28, 2021

They eventually got it together. Alex Ovechkin also posed with his dog Blake and Nicklas Backstrom did the same with Biscuit.

So @Kuzya92 is all of us on @Capitals #CapsCanineCalendar photoshoot day! Plus @backstrom19 with @CapsPup and @ovi8 with his dog Blake. pic.twitter.com/DbsSoI6UW8

MSE Foundation (@MSEFndn) October 28, 2021

Tom Wilsons fiancee and member of Team Canada Beach Volleyball, Taylor Pischke was on hand to help again this year.

PUPPIES! The @WTARescue dogs are here! Getting ready for our @Capitals #CapsCanineCalendar photo shoot! pic.twitter.com/FZECfWzJUT

MSE Foundation (@MSEFndn) October 28, 2021

Vitek Vanecek and Ilya Samsonov caught more than just pucks in their gloves.

Hes escaping! The puppy is escaping! pic.twitter.com/E61BGmiYxl

Washington Capitals (@Capitals) October 28, 2021

Carl Hagelin made sure to give this sweet black lab puppy some love.

@CarlHagelin pic.twitter.com/wAQmwtDk3n

Washington Capitals (@Capitals) October 28, 2021

Look at all these dudes and dudettes!

On set for our #CapsCanine calendar with @MSEFndn and @WTARescue! pic.twitter.com/nRVZGsmcg5

Washington Capitals (@Capitals) October 28, 2021

Tom Wilson and this horrifying act of adorableness.

Goodnight pic.twitter.com/ekDQBZ6O4E

Washington Capitals (@Capitals) October 28, 2021

Martin Fehervary, Connor McMichael, Trevor van Riemsdyk, and Nic Dowd also joined the puppy party.

Thats a wrap on this years #CapsCanine calendar!

Most puppies are available for adoption with @WTARescue and keep an eye out for the calendar soon! pic.twitter.com/JReV9CHDe3

Washington Capitals (@Capitals) October 28, 2021

Next up is the actual creation of the Capitals Canine Calendar which should arrive sometime later in the fall.

Headline photo via MSE Foundation (@MSEFndn)

Read more:

Another Capitals Canine Calendar photoshoot is finally here and LOOK AT ALL THE PUPPIES - Russian Machine Never Breaks

Protesters outside Parliament campaign against the Assisted Dying Bill. Janine Wiedel Photolibrary / Alamy

Bishop John Sherrington, lead bishop for life issues for the Bishops Conference of England and Wales, has thanked Catholics for writing to peers and praying that the Assisted Dying Bill might be defeated.

I would like to thank all those who have prayed that this Bill might be defeated and who have written letters to peers sharing their experiences and opposition to the Bill, he said. He told The Tablet: The passion associated with this debate invites further reflection about how we care for our elderly, the financing of such care, as well as the relationship between health and social care. He called for good spiritual accompaniment at all stages of sickness and terminal illness when such care can bring great solace and love to those at their most vulnerable.

In spite of strong opposition from British religious leaders and more than 1,600 medical professionals, the new Bill to allow assisted dying passed its Second Reading at the House of Lords last Friday. Tabled by Baroness Meacher, chair of Dignity in Dying, it came after two previous proposals which failed to become law before the 2015 UK General Election.

The Bill, as it currently stands, proposes to allow terminally ill people to seek assistance from in taking their own lives, a measure which would amend the current provisions of the 1961 Suicide act which make it an imprisonable offence to assist a person to commit suicide.

Proponents of the legislation argued that it was narrowly focused and aims only to relieve the pain of those who are already dying. Baroness Meacher described it as a truly modest Bill based on tried-and-tested laws from overseas.

She said: This Bill is an attempt to drag our assisted dying legislation out of the 1960s and into the present day. It is not a euthanasia Bill; it would read very differently if it were. What are the main provisions of the Bill? It would give terminally ill, mentally competent people over the age of 18 the right to choose the manner and timing of their death. To be eligible for an assisted death, two independent doctors would have to confirm that the person requesting assistance had a life expectancy of no more than six months.

Labour MP Frank Field said: Ive just spent a period in a hospice and am not well enough to participate in todays debate. If I had been Id have spoken strongly in favour of the Second Reading. I changed my mind on assisted dying when an MP friend was dying of cancer and wanted to die early before the full horror effects set in, but was denied this opportunity A major argument against the Bill is unfounded. It is thought by some the culture would change and that people will be pressurised into ending their lives. The number of assisted deaths in the US and Australia remains very low, under one per cent, and a former Supreme Court judge in Victoria has concluded about pressure from relatives that it just hasnt been an issue. I hope the House will today vote for the Assisted Dying Bill.

Bishop Sherrington said after the debate: The Bill has now passed to committee stage, without a vote, as is the convention of the House, and given that it is not supported by the Government, it will likely run out of time and not become law. He promised to continue to scrutinise and challenge this legislation in the months ahead.

If passed, the Bill would legalise assisted dying as a choice for terminally ill, mentally competent adults in their final six months of life. Two independent doctors and a High Court judge would have to assess each request which, if granted, would enable a patient to die in a manner and at a time and place of their choosing.

Concerns about where laws in this area would end were raised in the debate on Friday by Lord Harries of Pentregarth, a former Army officer and Church of England bishop, who said: in Belgium it goes much further and anybody with a of cluster of ailments what they call polypathology can actually ask for assisted dying. Fatigue has been added to the list and, if you are young and claim extreme deep depression, again, you can ask. This is not scaremongering; it is the way a lot of people are beginning to think. The question is whether we really want to go down that route. At the moment, we have a bulwark in place, and I think that that bulwark should stay; I do not want us to go down that road.

In the Netherlands, although medical supervision is required, euthanasia is permitted in cases of chronic pain and disability as well as terminal illness, and in recent years this definition has been widened to include those with severe mental illnesses. However, many in the Netherlands are arguing for still broader access to euthanasia. A Dutch psychologist, Wim van Dijk, revealed to a newspaper a few days ago that he had illegally provided more than 100 of his patients with suicide powder.

The debate has extended well beyond parliament, with Archbishop Justin Welby, Cardinal Vincent Nichols and The Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis sending a joint letter to express their profound disquiet over the Assisted Dying Bill.

They wrote: As leaders of faith communities, we wish to express our profound disquiet at the provisions of the Assisted Dying Bill currently in the House of Lords. We acknowledge that Baroness Meacher is seeking the alleviation of suffering. This motivation we share wholeheartedly, but we disagree on the means advanced to address this very real concern. In particular, we are conscious of the risks and dangers entailed in the provisions of the Bill and the real-life practical inadequacies of the proposed safeguards.

By the faiths we profess, we hold every human life to be a precious gift of the Creator, to be upheld and protected. All people of faith, and those of none, can share our concern that the common good is not served by policies or actions that would place very many vulnerable people in more vulnerable positions. We appeal to people of whatever faith or belief to join us through our common bond of humanity in caring for the most vulnerable people within our society.

In contrast to the proposals in this Bill, we continue to call for measures to make high-quality palliative care available to all at the end of their lives. We believe that the aim of a compassionate society should be assisted living rather than an acceptance of assisted suicide.

Read more from the original source:

Bishop thanks Catholics for opposition to Assisted Dying Bill - The Tablet

Guidelines: The IACUC has provided a set of guidance documents (Policies, Guidelines, and Informational Sheets) for use when planning animal procedures at the University of Iowa. An exception to a Guideline must be described and justified in the Animal Protocol and approved during the normal review process.

Purpose: The purpose of these guidelines is to describe acceptable methods for the euthanasia of animals used in teaching, research and testing at the University of Iowa. All animal euthanasia must be performed by appropriately trained personnel approved on the Animal Protocol.

Performance of Euthanasia

All animal euthanasia must be performed by appropriately trained personnel approved on the Animal Protocol. All euthanasia procedures must be continuously monitored by the person(s) performing the procedure, until confirmation of euthanasia is complete.

Confirmation of EuthanasiaAny animal euthanized on a University of Iowa Animal Protocol requires a method of confirmation of euthanasia. Some acceptable methods of confirmation are described below.

Common Acceptable Methods of EuthanasiaListed below are some commonly used and accepted methods of euthanasia for different species. This list is not inclusive. Please see the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia for further information.

Rodents weighing > 500grams

Rodents weighing <500 grams

Rodent CO2 Euthanasia

Isoflurane Euthanasia

Confirm Euthanasia as described previously in this document

Xenopus

Zebrafish

Birds

Non-Rodent Mammals

Euthanasia by Perfusion

Physical Methods of Euthanasia On Un-Anthesthetized Animals > 10 days old

References

"AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2013 Edition" AVMA.org., 2013.

Last Reviewed by the IACUC 1/08/2020

Read the rest here:

Euthanasia (Guideline) | Vertebrate Animal Research

National euthanasia statistics are difficult to pinpoint because animal care and control agencies are not uniformly required to keep statistics on the number of animals taken in, adopted, euthanized or reclaimed. While many shelters know the value of keeping statistics, no national reporting structure exists to make compiling national statistics on these figures possible.

However, American Humane is one of the founding members of the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy. The mission of the National Council is to gather and analyze reliable data that further characterize the number, origin and disposition of pets (dogs and cats) in the United States; to promote responsible stewardship of these companion animals; and based on the data gathered, to recommend programs to reduce the number of surplus/unwanted pets in the United States.

Unfortunately, the most recent statistics published by the National Council are from 1997, and only 1,000 shelters replied to the survey at that time. Using the National Councils numbers from 1997 and estimating the number of operating shelters in the United States to be 3,500 (the exact number of animal shelters operating in the United States does not exist), these estimates were made:

It is estimated that approximately 3.7 million animals were euthanized in the nations shelters in 2008. This number represents a generally accepted statistic that is widely used by many animal welfare organizations, including the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA).

For more information on the studies done by the National Council, please visitwww.petpopulation.org.

American Humane believes that all dogs and cats adopted from public or private animal care and control agencies must be sterilized before being allowed to leave the shelter and supports passage of state laws mandating this practice.

American Humane supports the establishment and operation of low-cost spay/neuter clinics. The reduction in cost motivates those who cannot and those who will not pay the full cost for the operation and has proven successful in reducing euthanasia rates in communities across the nation.

American Humane believes the percentage of animals reunited with their owners would greatly increase if more pets were properly identified:

More here:

Animal Shelter Euthanasia - American Humane

Five dogs that killed Lebanon resident Loretta Mae Moore, in September, will likely escape euthanasia because local ordinances and state law didnt adequately address dog attacks on their owners property.

A pit bull has already been rehomed.

Boone County Coroner Justin Sparks said that after a forensic pathologist performed the 84-year-olds autopsy, he determined her cause of death to be mutilation from dogs.

Moores sons four dogs and a fifth dog he was fostering were in the house they shared on Elizabeth Drive in Lebanon when he left for work Sept. 14. James Moore found his mothers body when he returned home, police said.

Part of her arm was missing and has never been found, and all five dogs had apparent blood stains around their mouths, according to the countys petition to destroy the dogs filed in Boone Circuit Court Sept. 24.

The City of Lebanon, Boone County, and the state of Indiana lack ordinances and laws to give the authority to euthanize dogs that attack on their owners property, Robert Clutter, attorney for the Boone County Commissioners said.

I guess none of us contemplated this type of situation, Clutter said, adding, We are trying to find a way to dispose of the dogs.

By state law, if the dogs leave the owners property and attack someone, there are a lot of remedies, Clutter said. But if an attack happens on the owners property, weve got some very limited remedies almost none.

Jim Moore wants his dogs back, and at least one other person offered to adopt the two huskies in the pack, authorities said.

Jim Moores four medium- to large-sized dogs are being held by the Boone County Sheriffs Office pending complete autopsy reports and conclusion of the Lebanon Police Departments investigation into Lorettas death.

State law considers dogs property, so were entitled to hold them as long as the investigation is still open, and its still open, Clutter said.

The fifth dog is a pit bull that Jim Moore took into foster care about a month earlier from Luccis House Bully Rescue of Indianapolis.

The county reached an agreement with the rescue group and released Chance to its custody Monday.

We agreed to permanent placement outside of Boone County and with a trainer who is very used to working with dogs who have behavioral issues, Clutter said. As part of the agreement, the dog is not allowed back in Boone County.

A woman who identified herself on the phone as the director of Luccis House declined to name herself or comment about the dog Tuesday

As for the remaining four owned by Mr. Moore, weve not yet arrived at satisfactory negotiations with his attorney, Clutter said.

Were trying to look toward a possible release of the dogs that would still protect the public as much as we can, he added. Were looking at a number of options. Mr. Moores attorney has been receptive to some different suggestions.

Its just all-around a terrible, traumatic situation.

Loretta attended services at Lighthouse Baptist Church when she moved to Lebanon from West Virginia years ago, her pastor, the Rev. Merv McNair said, adding that her attendance had been sparse since the pandemic.

She had lived in her own home at first until a rotator cuff in her shoulder gave her a lame arm and she moved in with her son, McNair said. Loretta rode to services with McNairs mother-in-law.

She was always, always happy to be here, McNair said. She felt the love here.

She knew the word of the Lord, he continued. She had the grace of God. She knew Christ. Ive got to believe that she was in glory before all the dog thing took place.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

View original post here:

http://www.reporter.net

Reading Time: 3 minutesFormer NSW Deputy Premier John Watkins has warned of the consequences of legalising euthanasia in NSW.

The nations peak Catholic healthcare advocacy body has called on NSW MPs to consider their position on voluntary assisted dying (VAD) and understand that advances in palliative care have fundamentally changed the political equation over the past decade.

NSW looks set to consider the VAD issue afresh, following the introduction of a private members bill. In an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald, Catholic Health Australia Chair and former NSW Deputy Premier John Watkins AM is calling on NSW MPs to look at the issue in light of medical advances.

The idea that supporting euthanasia is progressive, and opposing it is conservative, is obsolete. In fact, any thoughtful progressive should be worried about where the rush towards voluntary assisted dying is taking us, Mr Watkins said.

But if youre poor, live in the wrong area and have no health insurance, your chances of accessing modern palliative care is close to nil.

The critical factor thats changed over the past decade is medical science, primarily n the field of palliative care. New treatments like intrathecal care and nerve blocking are enabling people with life-ending conditions to achieve a quality of life inaccessible last century.

The problem is right now only a tiny fraction of our population has access to this modern palliative care. If you are among the privileged few who are very wealthy, live in the right area, or have great health insurance, you can get access to life-extending modern palliative treatments.

But if youre poor, live in the wrong area and have no health insurance, your chances of accessing modern palliative care is close to nil. If you are offered any end-of-life care and theres no guarantee you will be it will look far more like the 20th century model than the modern possibilities.

We could fix this. The Australian Medical Association estimates it would cost about an extra $275 million a year to make quality supportive care available to all terminally ill Australians who need it each year, he said.

The idea that supporting euthanasia is progressive, and opposing it is conservative, is obsolete

Surely any compassionate government in 2021 should be pushing for the average person to get modern palliative care long before they get access to death.

If we continue along the path were on, if we offer VAD and not modern supportive care, you can easily project the result. It will be a society in which terminally ill rich people get to extend their lives, achieve some level of closure and peace, and then die without pain. Terminally ill poor people, on the other hand, will be increasingly pressured to shuffle off and die quickly with dignity.

Related Articles:

Read the original here:

Euthanasia will hit the poor - The Catholic Weekly

A terminally ill woman from the New South Wales Mid North Coast hopes the state's politicians will support a new bill to allow terminally ill people to end their own lives.

Camden Haven resident Janet Cohen was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer in 2015.

She has previously considered moving to Tasmania and has recently been accepted to an assisted dying program in Basel, Switzerland.

She hopes the legislation will be passed so she won't have to do either.

"I do hope that I don't have to take that option.

"It would be great, as in all other states in Australia ... if parliamentarians could pass this bill so that New South Wales residents aren't disadvantaged."

MsCohen saidopponents warning of a 'slippery slope', and possible exploitation of the lawsignoredthat most people wishing to access assisted dying were suffering the end of a terrible disease.

"The only slippery slope that I'm aware of, is the one that I'm on and other terminally ill people are on. It's a slope on which you just don't know what's going to happen."

Her local member, Port Macquarie MP Leslie Williams will co-sponsor the voluntary assisted dying bill which will be introduced in the NSW Parliament on Thursday.

The LiberalMPsaid the number of co-sponsors and the multi partisan support across the parliament was an acknowledgement that it was ahuman rights issue that transcendedpolitics.

"Voluntary Assisted Dying is an uncomfortable subject for many people," she said.

"The decision to co-sponsor the bill is not one I have made lightly but it does reflect the overwhelming support across our community for those who are terminally ill to have a choice."

Dying with Dignity's Shayne Higsonsaid there was great support for voluntary assisted dying laws on the Mid North Coast, with more than 80 percent of people in the nearby seat of Oxley supporting it.

But it was still unclear which way the local Nationals member Melinda Pavey would vote, Ms Higson said.

"Hopefully she's listening to her constituents because Oxley actually has the highest level of support in the state.

"If this is not something that she wouldn't choose for herself, I don't think that's what it should be about.

"This is about giving control to a dying person who is at the end stage of their illness and who is experiencing unbearable suffering.

"My own mum had brain cancer where the end stages is horrendous and it's so traumatic to be forced to endure just the last few weeks of some of these illnesses.

"This is about giving dying people a compassionate, last resort choice.

"Data from the National Coronial Information System reveals that one in five suicides of people aged over 40 in NSW in 2019 were by people with a terminal or debilitating medical condition.

"And that is just unacceptable isn't it?"

It is four years since a similar bill was voted down in the Upper House.

Go here to read the rest:

'The only slippery slope is the one that I'm on': terminally ill woman looks to euthanasia law - ABC News