Category Archives: Euthanasia

RANCHO SANTA FE (KUSI)-

The 9th annual Remember Me Thursday brought to you by the Helen Woodward Animal Center was held virtually and people from all over the world took part in sharing stories about pet adoption and shined a light on the importance of saving pets lives.

Over 1 million pets are euthanized annually and the Helen Woodward Animal Center hosts Remember Me Thursday for all of those animals who never got a chance at a better life. It is proven that the more awareness brought to orphan pets results in: 1) Adoptions Increasing, 2) Euthanasia Decreasing, and 3) Puppy Mill Sales Decreasing.

KUSIs Kacey McKinnon spoke with CEO/President of the HWAC, Mike Arms about the life saving work the center has continued to do. Arms says, This day is so special. When we first started it, we had no idea how many people it would touch. Now, people from all over the world tune in each year on Remember Me Thursday.

Continued here:

The 9th annual Helen Woodward Animal Center 'Remember Me Thursday' shines a light on orphan pets - - KUSI

WATCH Shelter workers rescue pets after Texas storm

Austin shelters saved hundreds of pets from being euthanized after the Texas freeze and will be transporting them to shelters across the country.

Chelcey Adami, Wochit

In a move that couldjeopardizeAustin's commitment against killingsheltered animals, the nonprofit Austin Pets Alive has threatened to pack up and leave town unless changes are made to itslicense agreement with the city.

Since 2011, Austin Pets Alive has partnered with the cityby taking in stray and surrendered animals from the Austin Animal Center, which is Austin's taxpayer-funded shelter.

Austin Pets Alivedoes not accept money from the city, but is allowed to operate a downtown shelter on city-owned land on West Caesar Chavez street.

With the nonprofit's help, Austin has managed a 97% save rate through adoptions,, which is above the 90% national standard needed to be considered a no-kill city and also above the city's 87% save ratein the year prior to the partnership begining. The only pets now being euthanized have incurable medical conditions or were responsible for severe injuriesin an unprovoked attack.

But the partnership between Austin Pets Alive and the city has deteriorated, raising questions about if the city can maintain no-kill standards should its longtime ally go elsewhere.

More: Mix of heartbreak, outrage as Georgetown community mourns dogs killed in pet resort fire

The fight is overrestrictions that prevent Austin Pets Alive from housing animals that come from outside five Central Texas counties Travis, Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays and Williamson. The nonprofit wants to expand that reach to bring in animals from other jurisdictionsthat do not have no-kill protections.

Austin Pets Alivealso wants to discontinue an annual requirement that it accept 3,000 animals from the city shelter that are at risk of being killed.

The cityhas refused both demands, suggesting Austin Pets Alive should continue to serve only local pets as long as it continues to operate on city-owned land. That has led to a stalemate that neither sideseemsconfident will be resolved by thecontract's expirationon Nov. 23.

"More and more resources are added to the city budget, so fewer and fewer animals should fall through the cracks and onto our plate," said Dr. Ellen Jefferson, president of Austin Pets Alive.

More: Pet surrenders spike as end of eviction moratoriums loom, Austin shelters say

She said Austin Pets Alive would bewilling to accept any animal on the city shelter'seuthanasia list typically about 1,500 to 2,000 per year but objects to accepting animals not on that list, preferring to reserve kennel spacefor at-risk animals from outside of the immediate area.

"We'd rather take ones that are actually going to die, because that's our mission," she said.

After negotiations broke down with city staff, Austin Pets Alive recently turned toMayor Steve Adler and requested that the Austin City Council direct the city's shelter to agree to the changes sought by the nonprofit. Adler's office declined to comment for this story.

Council Member Leslie Pool said she is pushing to schedule an executive council session to determine the legality of Austin Pets Alive's proposals.

"If what staff is saying is indeed correct then we will have to in fact part ways," Pool said. "I see that as more of a negative for the city than APA because APA is going to be successful wherever with their mission. Their leaving would be a big void for the city of Austin."

As of Monday, the city shelter had taken in 9,241 dogs and cats this year. During that same period in 2019 the most recent year not impacted by the coronavirus pandemic it tookin 14,109 dogs and cats. The shelter's budget for next year is $16.4 million, a 20% increase from three years ago. Jefferson saidit's the highest budget for animal services per capita in the country.

In rejecting the demand to expand Austin Pets Alive's reach outside of the five-county territory, Don Bland, the city's chief animal services officer, said the protection of Austin-area pets must continue to be the focus.

"The citys primary goal is to ensure that city taxpayer investments are focused on supporting animals found in the citys jurisdiction," he said.

As for the 3,000 pet intake requirement: "Removing that provision entirely would negate the reason for free use of the property," city spokeswoman Jennifer Olohan said. "The city values its partnership with APA, which is why we have been open to negotiating that number of animals."

Olohan said the city made a counteroffer in July after rejecting Austin Pets Alive's demands. Austin Pets Alive then rejected the counteroffer, which Jefferson said would have required the nonprofit to accept 2,000 dogs with behavioral issues. Austin Pets Alive declined, she said, because she thought it was important to protect a wider selection of animals that were at risk of being killed.

The disagreement comes just months after the city sounded alarms over a spacing crises at the city shelter. In late June, Bland wrote a memo to the City Council saying the shelter had no additional capacity to house animals and discouraging residents from bringing in stray animals. Bland threatened euthanasia for animals with behavioral concerns that have been housed in the shelterfor a long period.

More: 'Nobody forgot the animals': How Austin put lost, rescued pets before themselves in a crisis

At the time, the city said it was forced to house about 30 animals in back rooms at the shelter, out of public sight. That number was down to 16 this week, the city said.

A city ordinance approved in 2010 requires the city to have a 95% save rate. Austin Pets Alive's departure could make it difficult for the shelter to hit that mark without assistance, Jefferson said.

"If our agreement expires and a new one doesn't go into effect there is no formal mechanism on the books to comply with the ordinance," she said.

Olohan, the city spokeswoman, said the city has tentative plansif it fails to reach a renewal agreement with Austin Pets Alive, but said "we are not ready to release those just yet."

If it can resolve the dispute with the city, Austin Pets Alive says it is looking to sign a 75-year agreement. The nonprofit said it has plans to renovate the downtown shelter but first needsassurances it would be there for a long time.

Jefferson said that even if Austin Pets Alive ends up leaving the city, the nonprofit hopes to continue to assist Austin in a informal relationship by accepting animals from the city shelter that are at risk for euthanasia. She said Austin Pets Alive is looking at properties on the outskirts of the city, a challenge, perhaps, for some of the nonprofit's volunteers who are accustomed to a short drive downtown.

Continued here:

Austin Pets Alive threatens to leave town over disagreement with city - Austin American-Statesman

My parents were both very supportive of euthanasia. They felt strongly about ending your life when you feel it is not up to your own standards any more. They made this known in 2014, while they were both healthy and in their 60s, by signing a euthanasia declaration with their GP. They agreed that euthanasia was an option in case of intolerable suffering, terminal illness and dementia.

his was in the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been legalised for competent adults and emancipated minors since 2002. The same is the case in Belgium, where I grew up, where I met my Irish husband and where our children were born. Every year, fewer than 5pc of deaths in these countries are from euthanasia, and 85pc of these are patients with a terminal illness. GPs are actively involved.

In 2018, my mother was diagnosed with bowel cancer and she received excellent care. Surgery to remove part of the bowel was a success and she began a course of chemotherapy. Six weeks later, she developed pain radiating from her spine which stopped her from sleeping. It took a while to get a final diagnosis. At first, it was thought that this pain was due to the operation and not the cancer. After weeks of uncontrollable pain, however, it became more and more apparent that the cancer had spread throughout her body. At the start of 2019, she was told treatment could only be palliative. It started off with morphine patches.

This news was a hard blow, for her and for my father in particular, but also for my siblings, whose lives changed dramatically. Both my sisters are qualified nurses and lived near my parents. They decided to take on her care. From that moment on, my mother became a full-time patient, with my father and sisters providing 24-hour care so she could stay at home. Living in Ireland, I only observed this from a distance, with infrequent visits and regular phone calls.

My mothers health got progressively worse. Yet at another level, she had the time of her life. She always loved being the centre of attention. It was something she had craved since she was shipped off to boarding school at the age of eight, a traumatic experience. Her cancer, strangely enough, gave her an unapologetic approach to get this attention, from my father as well as my sisters.

My brother was in charge of all practical arrangements. He also showered her with flowers. The house was always full of them and she loved it. Yes, my mother, fighting her cancer, certainly made the most of the attention, and she loved every moment of it.

By June, the pain started to take hold of her and morphine patches could not control the pain any more. She was provided with a morphine pump and the dose was slowly increased every week. Her belly started to show the growth of the cancer. Even though other parts of her body showed weight loss, her belly swelled.

Throughout her medical journey, her GP was very close and guided her every step. He would check in with her, weekly in person and whenever necessary over the phone. She was very fond of him and it helped he was very young. She liked that. But by the end of July, her conversations with him changed, from What can be done next? to This is getting too bad.

They talked about passive euthanasia, which would mean increasing her medication, stopping her food and water intake and inducing coma so she would die peacefully. Considering the amount of fluid retention in her belly, however, this could take weeks if not longer and was dismissed. Passive euthanasia would result in secondary conditions, such a bed sores, and the care required without her being mentally present would weigh on all her family. Her condition was bad, and my sisters and my father were tired. A decision was made to hire a night nurse, so everyone could at least get a good nights rest.

Only days later, my mother summoned the GP. After he talked to her, he called a meeting. My mother wanted to start the conversation about active euthanasia. She was at the maximum morphine dose, her pain was increasing all the time and relief was only occasional. She was really suffering. It was decided to trigger the active euthanasia process.

Her declaration was in place with the GP, but to proceed with euthanasia, an independent SCEN (support and consultation with euthanasia) doctor has to meet the patient to confirm their wish. These doctors have been trained in the legal aspects of euthanasia, to support GPs and to provide an independent observation of the patients wish to die.

My father rang me on a Friday afternoon, a call that I had been expecting for a long time but caught me off guard at the same time. He told me they had decided to start the procedure, and asked if I still supported this decision. Even though it is not the familys decision, and they cannot overrule or change the patients wishes, having their support is important.

As in many families, we often have different opinions, but in this, we all recognised my mothers wish and supported her. My dad called again on Saturday, and told me the SCEN doctor was coming on Monday. He was concerned because my mother was on such a high dose of morphine that it was difficult to counteract this with another drug, Haldol, to keep her present. He was worried she wouldnt be able to tell her story coherently, thereby stopping the process. We had to trust the process, and the SCEN doctor, who would have seen many patients in her condition. I booked my flight.

Monday came. I left Galway on the airport bus while the SCEN doctor sat with my mother for more than two hours. She left without talking to the rest of the family. The GP confirmed the next day that the SCEN doctor approved active euthanasia. My mother asked for a priest. The GP ordered the medication. The day and time were set: Wednesday at 1pm.

It was decided that only her children and my father would be told of the timing. We agreed that her grandchildren, her sisters and brothers, all other family, would only be told after. My mother had spent the past months saying goodbye to everyone, and shed had enough. We needed our energy and attention to support her, and were grateful for this decision: no distractions.

The GP came by again on Tuesday and he had a brief conversation with my mother, confirming her wishes once again. My father wanted to be alone with her that evening and it was decided we would meet at 10am the next day. Each of us had a task. My eldest sister was in charge of the medication. She talked to the nurses who maintain the morphine pumps, on how to keep my mother present without her freaking out. She got it right. My youngest sister would dress her. I was to wash her and make food. My brother got the flowers.

Wednesday morning. My mother was surprisingly calm and content. My father was trying very hard to keep it together. He made a rule. The room in which my mothers bed was set up was going to be a dry room. By which he meant, you do your crying outside there; once in, youre there to support your mother. Fair enough. He also wanted to have coffee and a slice of cake at 11am, after which they would go to my mothers room and get her settled. We were then to join them. The plan was set.

Jobs done, 11am came, coffee and cake was served. Only my mother ate the cake. Her cancer had kept her appetite roaring throughout and now was no different. She even finished some of the other slices, commenting on how nice it tasted. We had to laugh.

Then my father got up and said: Its time. That was an intense moment, fighting the tears; the memory still brings them on even now. We were left sitting with the leftover cake, a bit stunned. Half an hour later, we were called into the dry room. By then, we were all settled. The mood was positive. We checked with each other, with my father, and then for the last time, with my mother. Mam, are you sure? She was calm and together, holding my fathers hand. Yes, she was sure.

Sometimes, situations just throw you. The GP and his colleague, in true Dutch fashion, arrived on their bikes and locked them. The locking of the bike hit me with a surreal feeling; it was such an ordinary thing to do in such extraordinary circumstances.

It was a beautiful sunny day. They came in and we were asked to leave the room. The GP was with my mother on his own, briefly, I imagine to confirm with her again, to make sure. He called us back in and started setting up. My father took his place on the bed, holding my mother. My eldest sister was holding him. My brother and my youngest sister were on the other side of the bed, holding her hand. I was at her feet. Earlier that day the nurse inserted a port. Everything was ready.

Then the GP broke down. It was his first euthanasia, which was why his colleague was with him for support. My mother had the kindest response it is amazing what these situations bring and she told him to take his time, that she really appreciated all her time with him and that she was ready when he was. He was very apologetic, but we all laughed and asked my father: So this dry room thing does not apply to him? My father smiled and shrugged his shoulders. The GP got his emotions under control again. We all said a last goodbye and my mother confirmed for the last time. He first gave her something to put her to sleep. Her head fell against my fathers arm and she gave one last loud snore. He then administered the medication to stop her heart. At 1.03pm she was gone; we closed her eyes.

The GP left for a moment and we slowly took in the situation. He came back in to confirm her death and then moved on to call the police, who had been informed in advance. Euthanasia is still classified as an unnatural death and a coroner has to confirm it and make sure all the paperwork has been done as part of the legal process. Once that was done, and after sitting around for a while, still stunned, we informed the rest of the family. The grandchildren started dropping in, the funeral directors dropped by, many phone calls were made.

We were lucky, not only because my mother had this as an option, which she chose, but also because we all supported her in this decision. But, in saying that, none of us could have stopped the process. It was her decision and hers only. Having a supportive family surely made this a shared experience, but without her strength and conviction, this would not have been possible.

My mother was brought up a Catholic and remained loosely connected to the church. She would always watch the Pope at Easter, and make sure she would hear his Urbi et Orbi, but she did not go to church. Many candles lit in churches had to make up for this. She was also a practical woman, who understood that the end of her life would become increasingly painful. And finally, she loved attention and drama but realised she was getting too tired to enjoy it. For her, euthanasia was an option. This is not the case for everyone, but we are grateful she could avail of it. For my father, my sisters, my brother and me, however strange this may sound, it is a positive memory.

Read more:

'My mother died by euthanasia. For my family, that day is a positive memory' - Independent.ie

Archbishop Mark Coleridge is among Catholic Church leaders warning against euthanasia in Australia.Evandro Inetti/ZUMA

Queensland is poised to become the fifth Australian state to pass laws allowing euthanasia.

Debate is expected to start in the Queensland parliament in Brisbane on Tuesday, September 14 and continue for several days before a final vote.

The Church strongly opposes euthanasia and this month Brisbanes archbishop, Mark Coleridge, president of theAustralian Catholic Bishops Conference urged Catholics, their families and friends to sign a petition demanding Queensland MPs reject aVoluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) Bill.

These laws, if passed, will overturn foundational principles that have underpinned our medical and legal systems for centuries the ethic of do no harm and the prohibition on killing, Archbishop Coleridge said.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide laws undermine the fundamental relationship of trust that should exist between a patient and their doctor.

At an eleventh-hour March for Life rally in Brisbane on Saturday a highly-experienced chest doctor warned that wrongful deaths will occur under Queenslands proposed euthanasia laws, due to misdiagnosis.

Unfortunately diseases are hard to predict and doctors make dramatic mistakes, at times, thoracic physician, Dr Luke Garske, said.

Dr Garske spoke to a crowd of about 1000 VAD opponents about his experience with a patient who had a severe lung condition and was relying on oxygen to walk even a few steps.

Dr Garske told this patient he could expect to live for another 12 months.

Six months later it became obvious he had a different diagnosis and he continued to improve, he said.

He (the patient) returned to my clinic once a year for the next 13 years, and every time he came in he had a big smile to remind me of my mistake.

Now I ask you would it be okay if this patient had decided to have assisted suicide based on my wrong advice at the start?

Now you might be thinking thats a one off miracle case but I am not actually a below average doctor, and there are thousands of doctors like me.

All experienced doctors have made a wrong diagnosis, and all experienced doctors have learned they can be wildly wrong in predicting survival.

Dr Garske said there would be no practical way under Queenslands proposed assisted dying laws to detect wrongful deaths of this kind.

Under Queenslands VAD bill a person is eligible for voluntary assisted dying if they are expected to die within 12 months.

Underother Australian models the period is six months, except for progressive neurological conditions, in which case its 12 months.

With the 12 months survival in Queensland there will be more wildly wrong estimates of survival, patients missing out on potentially many good years, Dr Garske said.

So the Queensland VAD will cause even more wrongful deaths.

Please keep us all safe.

In Australia, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania have already pass laws legalising euthanasia and assisted dying.

View post:

Queensland poised to pass euthanasia law - The Tablet

Is euthanasia painless? The founder of the British pro-euthanasia movement (and sometime eugenicist) Dr Killick Millard declared in 1931 that his aim was to substitute for the slow and painful death a quick and painless one. His sentiment is echoed today by the pro-euthanasia group My Death, My Decision, which says that it wants the option of a peaceful, painless, and dignified death. The British Medical Association appears to agree and this week dropped its opposition to the Assisted Dying Bill, currently making its way through parliament.

As a doctor and expert witness against the use of lethal injection for execution in America, however, I am quite certain that assisted suicide is not painless or peaceful or dignified. In fact, in the majority of cases, it is a very painful death.

The death penalty is not the same as assisted dying, of course. Executions are meant to be punishment; euthanasia is about relief from suffering. Yet for both euthanasia and executions, paralytic drugs are used. These drugs, given in high enough doses, mean that a patient cannot move a muscle, cannot express any outward or visible sign of pain. But that doesnt mean that he or she is free from suffering.

In 2014, I watched the lethal injection of Marcus Wellons in a Georgia prison. The 59-year-old had been sentenced to death for the rape and murder of his 15-year-old neighbour India Roberts in 1989. Im going home to be with Jesus were his final words as the drugs entered his body.

I noticed that Wellonss fingers were taped to the stretcher, which made little sense, given his body had already been restrained by heavy straps. I kept asking myself why. I read into the subject and came across a report of the lethal injection execution of another death row inmate, Dennis McGuire, five months earlier. During that 24-minute process at the Ohio jail, McGuire clenched his fists. Perhaps it was a final, futile show of defiance. Perhaps it was an outward display of pain. With his fingers secured, Wellons could not have made any such gesture.

In 2017, I obtained a series of autopsies of inmates executed by lethal injection, which confirmed my worst fears. Wellonss autopsy revealed that his lungs were profoundly congested with fluid, meaning they were around twice the normal weight of healthy lungs. He had suffered what is known as pulmonary oedema, which could only have occurred as he lay dying. Wellons had drowned in his secretions. Yet even my medical eye detected no sign of distress at his execution.

In America, there is no stated means of death for victims of lethal injection. Federal litigation dictates that executions must not be cruel but they are permitted to be painful. Far from the instantaneous death sought by the Supreme Court justices, drowning in this manner is both prolonged and painful.

Wellons was executed with a chemical called pentobarbital, which caused his pulmonary oedema. In Oregon, four in five assisted suicides have employed pentobarbital or its close relatives. (The Assisted Dying Bill is based on the Oregon system.) If a post-mortem examination were to be performed on a body after assisted suicide, its very likely that similar pulmonary oedema would be found.

Increasingly, drug shortages have forced states in America wishing to execute inmates to improvise. Some use barbiturates like pentobarbital in isolation, others mask its effects with other drugs. In either case, it is the lethal barbiturates that trigger death. What is to say the same thing wont eventually end up happening in Britain with assisted dying?

The proposals before the House of Lords would see sick patients prescribed a lethal dose of perhaps 100 barbiturate pills. Laws in Oregon, like those proposed in the UK, require patients to take the drugs themselves, which rules out any form of general anaesthetic. Often patients are handed anti-sickness and anti-seizure tablets but nothing more in preparation, meaning theyre very much awake as the assisted suicide process begins and they start ingesting fatal quantities of barbiturates. Without a general anaesthetic, many will be in great discomfort, even if outwardly they dont appear to be suffering.

Indeed, there are countless examples of people who have discovered just how messy, painful and distressing it can be as they watched their loved ones go through the process. Take Linda Van Zandt, who helped her aunt, suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, die in California. She later described how she had to feed 100 crushed pills in a drink to her aunt who could barely swallow water, but had to drink all of it in less than five minutes to ensure success. She concludes: The day was fraught and frightening We had been forced to assist in the most bizarre fashion, jumping through seemingly random legal hoops and meeting arbitrary deadlines while my aunt suffered, and finally emptying capsules, making an elixir so vile I cried when I knew she had to drink it. This was death with dignity?

I have met and explained my findings to many inmates on death row. Based on this pulmonary oedema information, three inmates on Tennessees death row considered their options. Having heard the consequences of the process shared between assisted suicide and lethal injection, all three chose to die instead by the electric chair.

Advocates of assisted dying owe a duty to the public to be truthful about the details of killing and dying. People who want to die deserve to know that they may end up drowning, not just falling asleep.

Read this article:

Last rights: assisted suicide is neither painless nor dignified - Spectator.co.uk

A group of protestors was outside the premises of Animal Welfare this morning, over the unjustified euthanasia of rescued Pitbulls which happened last month.

Accusations were being thrown towards the directorate, as protestors blame Animal Welfare for putting down the rescued dogs, despite them being perfectly healthy.

This comes after the controversial euthanasia which sparked up a multitude of discussions and reactions on social media platforms in the last month.

The protestors also called upon the directorate to relieve dogs from being in cages all day, as this might be leading to aggressive behaviour.

The directorate had previously denied that it puts Pitbulls down because of their breed. However, in another statement, it outlined that in certain rare cases this can happen, mainly because of reasons such as high prey drive or an unpredictable nature.

Emmanuel Cassar, the organiser of the protest, said that they gathered there this morning to take a stance against the killing of innocent dogs.

What do you make of this?

Read the original:

Protestors Outside Animal Welfare This Morning Over Unjustified Euthanasia Of Pitbulls - Lovin Malta

As a medical doctor I have, with some worry, followed the assisted dying debate that regularly hits headlines in many parts of the world. The main arguments for legalisation are respecting self-determination and alleviating suffering. Since those arguments appear self-evident, my book Euthanasia and the Ethics of a Doctors DecisionsAn Argument Against Assisted Dying1 aimed to contribute to the international debate on this matter.

I found it worthwhile to look into the arguments for legalisation more closely, with the hope of sowing a little doubt in the minds of those who exhibit absolute certainty in the matter. This essay focuses on one point: the concept of autonomy.

(While there are several definitions of voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary euthanasia as well as assisted dying, assisted suicide, and physician assisted suicide, for the purposes of brevity in this essay, I use assisted dying throughout.)

Currently, in richer countries, arguments for legalising assisted dying frequently refer to the right to self-determinationor autonomy and free will. Our ability to self-determine seems to be unlimited and our right to it inviolable. The publics response to opinion poll questions on voluntary euthanasia show that people can scarcely imagine not being able to make up their own minds, nor can they imagine not having the choice. Moreover, a healthy person answering a poll may have difficulty imagining being in a predicament where they simply would not wish to be given the choice.

I question whether self-determination is genuinely possible when choosing your own death. In my book, I explain that the choice will always be made in the context of a non-autonomous assessment of your quality of lifethat is, an assessment outside your control.1

All essential decisions that we make are made in relation to other people. Our decisions are affected by other people, and they affect other people. Although healthy people find it difficult to imagine themselves in situations where they do not decide freely, it is also true that all of us are vulnerable and dependent on others.

Yet autonomy in relation to assisted dying is often viewed in the same way as our fundamental right to choose our own course in life. If we are able to control our lives, then surely we can also control our death. Autonomy with respect to your own death, however, is already halved: you can choose to die if you dont want to live, but you cannot choose to live if you are about to die.

Decisions about your own death are not made in normal day-to-day contexts. The wish to die arises against a backdrop: of desperation, a feeling of hopelessness, possibly a feeling of being superfluous. Otherwise, the wish would not be there. Thus, it is under these circumstances that the right to self-determination is exercised and the decision is made. Such a situation is a fragile basis for autonomy and an even more fragile basis for decision making. The choice regarding your own death is therefore completely different from most other choices usually associated with the concept of autonomy.

Here are just some of the critical matters that would arise if assisted dying were legalised.

The possibility of choosing to die would inhabit everyones consciousnessthe patient, the doctor, the relatives, and the care staffeven if not formulated as an out-and-out offer. But if a law on assisted dying gives the patient a right to die, that right may turn into a duty to die. How autonomously can the weakest people act when the world around them deems their ill, dependent, and pained quality of life as beyond recovery?

Patients can find themselves directly or indirectly under duress to choose that option if they consider themselves sufficiently pained and their quality of life sufficiently low. Patients must be at liberty to choose assisted dying freely, of coursethat is how it is presentedbut the point is that the patient cannot get out of having to choose. It has been called the prison of freedom.

Pressure on the patient does not have to be direct or articulated. As pointed out by the US professor of biomedical ethics Daniel Sulmasy it may exist as an internalised external pressure.2 Likewise, the French bioethicist Emmanuel Hirsch states that individual autonomy can be an illusion. The theologian Nigel Biggar quotes Hirsch saying that a patient may truly want to die, but this desire is not the fruit of his freedom alone, it may beand most often isthe translation of the attitude of those around him, if not of society as a whole which no longer believes in the value of his life and signals this to him in all sorts of ways. Here we have a supreme paradox: someone is cast out of the land of the living and then thinks that he, personally, wants to die.3

An inherent problem of autonomy in connection with assisted dying is that a person who uses his or her presumed right to self-determination to choose death definitively precludes himself or herself from deciding or choosing anything. Where death is concerned, your right to self- determination can be exerted only by disposing of it for good. By your autonomy, in other words, you opt to no longer have autonomy. And those around must respect the right to self-determination. The respect refers to a person who is respected, but this is precisely the person who disappears.

Danish philosopher Johannes Slk, who supported legalisation, said, The actual concept of death has no content, for death is the same as nothing, and one cannot choose between life and nothing. Rather, therefore, one must speak of opting out; one opts out of life, without thereby choosing anything else. Death is not something other than life; it is the cessation or annihilation of life.

Autonomy is a consistent principle running through the care and management of patients and is enshrined in law. However, a patients autonomy means that he or she has the right to decline any treatment. It does not entail a right to have any treatment the patient might wish for. Patients do not have the right to demand treatment that signifies anothers duty to fulfil that right. If that were so, autonomy would be the same as autocracyrule of the self over others. Even though patients have the right to reject any intervention, they do not have the right to demand any intervention. Rejecting any claim that the person might make is not a violation of a patients self- determinationfor example, there may be sound medical reasons for not complying with a demand. The doctor also has autonomy, allowing him or her to say no. Refusing to kill a person or assist in killing cannot be a violation of that persons autonomy.

Assisted dying requires the doctors moral and physical help. It is a binding agreement between two people: the one who is to be killed and the one who is to kill or assist in killing. But our society does not condone killing as a relationship between two legally competent, consenting people. Exemptions from the killing ban involve war or self-defence and are not justified on the grounds that the killing is done for the benefit of someone else.

If the action is to be decriminalised, as some people wish, it means the doctor will have to enter into deliberations and arguments for and against a request for assisted dying each time. That is, whether he or she is willing to grant it. The alternative would be to refer the patient to another doctor who might be willing to helpthat doctor would still have to assess whether the patients life was worth preserving.

Thus, autonomy is not the only factor or even always the key factor when deciding whether assisted dying can be granted. It is not only the patients own evaluation that is crucial. The value of the patients life must also be assessed as sufficiently low. This demonstrates the limitation of the patients self-determination.

If a competent and legally capable person must have the option of voluntarily choosing assisted dying in the event of unbearable suffering, why does suffering have to be a requirement? The answer is straightforward: our concepts of assisted dying imply that compassion must form a crucial aspect of the decisionmercy killing and compassionate killing are synonyms. But this leads instantly to the question of why we should not also perform assisted dying on people who are not in a position to ask for it themselves but are also suffering.

Some people find the reasoning unproblematic. It stands to reason that relieving suffering is a duty after all. But in this context it is not unproblematic, because it effectively shifts the focus from the autonomy claimed. According to prevailing ideas about autonomy, patients initially evaluate their quality of life themselves, but ultimately it is those around them who end up gauging that quality and the value of their life. That is to say, the justification for assisted dying is borne on the premise that certain lives are not worth living rather than the presence of a request. The whole point is that in the process, respect for the right to self-determination becomes relative.

Autonomy is largely an illusion in the case of assisted dying.1 A patient overwhelmed by suffering may be more in need of compassion, care, and love than of a kind offer to help end his or her life. It is not a question of whether people have a right to say that they are unworthy. It is a question of whether they have a right to be believed when saying it.

Ole Hartling is a physician of over 30 years standing, doctor of medical sciences at the University of Copenhagen, professor of health promotion at the University of Roskilde, and an author and co-author of several books and scientific articles published mainly in Scandinavia. Between 2000 and 2007 he was a member of the Danish Council of Ethics and its chair for five years. During this time, the council extensively debated the ethics of euthanasia and assisted dying.

Original post:

Euthanasia and assisted dying: the illusion of autonomyan essay by Ole Hartling - The BMJ

What contempt the Queensland Government must have for Christians that they have chosen the middle of a pandemic to pick an ideological fight with the church that provides 20 per cent of the states hospital and aged care beds.

Queensland Labor will soon introduce a euthanasia bill that, if passed, will compel Catholic care facilities to permit terminally ill patients to be killed.

Why the ALP would require such a thing of Christians, let alone at a time when the state most needs the Catholic health system, is a mystery.

Perhaps the Palaszczuk government has grown so used to pushing citizens around over the past 18 months that it now believes it can get away with murder.

Could it be that the premier does not realise Catholic hospitals are run by Catholics?

Maybe she is unaware of an idea held by Catholics common amongst Christians but evidently quite rare in the modern Labor Party called sanctity of life.

Queensland Deputy Premier Stephen Miles has dismissed such concerns, insisting that euthanasia in faith-run facilities would be very, very rare.

Ohhhhh, well if the residents of Catholic nursing homes are onlyoccasionallyput to death

Inconveniently for Miles, Christians cannot pick and choose when life is sacred and when it is expendable.

Christian doctrine, unlike Labor policy, doesnt change according to the fancies of this weeks focus group.

But what about compassion? Thats all the Labor Party is seeking. A bit of compassion for people wanting to be euthanised but not well enough to be moved from a Christian facility to a state-based hospital where there is more you know flexibility, when it comes to respect for life.

Whatever the reason for the governments desire to make Christians an accessory to euthanasia, it is not compassion.

Remember, this is the compassionate government that, just days ago, refused entry to Queensland for a four-month-old baby who needed vital brain scans.

The government had to protect its citizens from Covid, you see. A baby just south of the border was not a person to be helped, but a hazard to be locked out.

Speaking of Coronavirus, its hard to square the Queensland Governments insistence that not one person must be allowed to die from Covid, no matter the cost, with its insistence that assisted dying must be continually promoted and any obstruction criminalised.

Catholics fell into line when the government told them they could not sing for fear of spreading Covid.

And Catholics fell into line when the government told them they could not meet for fear of hosting a super spreader event.

But Catholics have told the government they will not, indeed they cannot, obey a law that requires them to assist in the provision of euthanasia at their facilities.

The government should not force Christians to become accessories to other peoples deaths. That would impose a burden of conscience impossible to bear.

And impossible for Queensland to bear would be the economic burden if, by its own pigheadedness, the government forced the closure of faith-based hospitals and aged care facilities and was therefore required to fill the gap.

Indeed, they could not. The health system would collapse. And all in the middle of a pandemic.

This was the very dilemma faced in June by South Australian politicians who, at the last moment, blinked and changed their legislation to exempt faith-based providers from being a party to assisted dying.

Right now though, Miles is speaking from on high as one whose words are written in stone.

I expect all of our healthcare providers and aged-care providers will comply with the law, he told The Australian, brooking no exceptions.

The open hostility to people of faith is an affront to citizens everywhere.

If the state cares so little as to completely dismiss a Catholics conscience on something as fundamental as the sanctity of life, more fool you if you think you have any rights at all.

Christians, Jews and Muslims believe Thou shalt not kill was written in stone and by none other than the finger of God long before Queensland Labor started peddling pro-death policies.

The Catholics, like them or not, are right now about the only institution prepared to stand up to the state.

We should all pray they hold their nerve.

More here:

Why has Queensland Labor declared war on Catholic healthcare over euthanasia? - The Spectator Australia

Queensland is set this week to become the fifth state in the country to legalise voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill patients.

The journey to change the law has been long, including a year-long parliamentary inquiry in 2019, referral to the Queensland Law Reform Commission, and the introduction of a bill in May to meet a Labor election pledge.

If the voluntary euthanasia laws pass, they are expected to come into effect in January 2023.Credit:JasonSouth

A parliamentary committee last month recommended the bill pass, although LNP MP Mark Robinson, a devout Christian, said it should not pass, or if it did, should be amended to allow health practitioners who conscientiously object to also refuse to refer patients to someone who would provide the service.

Under the proposed bill, which will be debated in Parliament this week, Queensland adults must have been diagnosed with a disease, illness or medical condition that is advanced, progressive, will cause death within 12 months, and is causing intolerable suffering.

The person must be assessed by two doctors, make three separate requests, and they can change their mind at any time.

Private hospitals and residential aged care facilities run by religious organisations will have the right to conscientiously object and choose not to provide euthanasia, but they must not hinder a persons access to it.

But opponents, such as Catholic Health Australia, do not want to be forced to allow euthanasia on their premises, and they have raised concerns that people would not need to see a specialist doctor before ending their own lives.

St Vincents Health Australia, which runs three hospitals in Queensland, was also pushing for amendments, including preventing VAD-approved doctors and nurses from entering hospitals unannounced to assist patients with euthanasia.

On the other hand, a survey of Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union members in February found almost 87 per cent supported voluntary assisted dying, while YouGov polling from last year, commissioned by the Clem Jones Trust, found 77 per cent of Queenslanders were in favour.

View post:

Voluntary euthanasia set to become law in Queensland this week - Brisbane Times

Getty

South Louisiana, especially Down the Bayou, is in extreme need of relief and recovery aid in the aftermath of Hurricane Ida. So instead of the usual pithy Bon Vivant fodder, todays post is dedicated to people and organizations with boots on the ground helping in real time. There are so many worthwhile individuals and entities helping in the affected areas, so please feel free to donate to your favorite if you can help. But if you arent sure where to donate, heres a list to get you started, including a summary (mostly from each organizations website or donation page) of the groups mission or group it supports.

New Orleans Musicians Clinic Hurricane Ida Relief: This group is feeding its members, getting them their medicines and medical attention, assisting with FEMA claims and many other services post-hurricane. It describes its work as providing comprehensive medical care and social services to local musicians, performing artists, cultural workers, and tradition bearers.

Feed the Second Line: Post-hurricane, Feed the Second Line is providing food, supplies and assistance in New Orleans and Down the Bayou. From its site, We support culture bearers by purchasing groceries and other essentials, we create job opportunities for culture-bearers, we provide general support for those who make our city culturally rich place.

Zeus Rescues: Zeus volunteers have been rescuing pets left behind or lost during the storm, on the day-to-day however this is what the group does: It is the mission, duty, and purpose of Zeus Rescues to eradicate pet homelessness and euthanasia within the New Orleans metro area. The organization is further committed to community-building and pet education with a focus on children and the elderly.

Habitat for Humanity New Orleans: Habitat has a fund specific to Hurricane Ida relief. Its overall mission is To responsibly build communities where families can thrive, in homes they can afford.

Second Harvest Food Bank: For its Hurricane Relief fund, Second Harvest says, Thousands have been impacted and displaced by Hurricane Ida. Every $1 donated helps Second Harvest provide 4 meals to our neighbors facing hunger. Meanwhile the group says it leads the fight against hunger in South Louisiana by providing food access, advocacy, education, and disaster response.

Bayou Fund: This Go Fund Me was established by Chef Melissa Martin of Mosquito Supper Club in New Orleans through the Helio Foundation to help people Down the Bayou in her native Terrebonne Parish.

Cajun Navy Relief: Simply put, TheCajun Navy Relief and Rescueis here to help those in need. If you are unfamiliar with the group, its volunteers go into disaster areas to rescue people and pets, as well as offer supplies and other aid.

United Houma Nation: Also assisting tribal members and others in the hurricane affected areas, from its site, The United Houma Nation is a 501c3 nonprofit organization The Tribe survives and thrives on financial contributions to support general daily operations as well as programmatic support.

World Central Kitchen: Chef Issac Toups of Toups Meatery in New Orleans, as well as other chefs throughout South Louisiana are serving hot meals to people in need in partnership with World Central Kitchen. Many people know World Central Kitchen through its founder Chef Jos Andrs. The group offers culinary training and education as well as other initiatives, but also serves meals in the aftermath of disasters. Andrs is often somehow, remarkably the first on the ground after a crisis and South Louisiana was no exception.

The homes and livelihoods of thousands of people have been destroyed so if you live in South Louisiana or have ever visited here and fell in love with the beauty, food, art, music, history, mystery, parades, animals, landscape and people that create New Orleans and Louisiana culture and lore, and you have cash to spare, please make a donation to one of these worthwhile organizations or one that isnt on this list.

Originally posted here:

Relief and Recovery: Helping People Affected by Hurricane Ida - My New Orleans