Category Archives: Euthanasia

Its a sunny autumn morning in the Jordaan, Amsterdams chocolate-boxiest district. Over tea in a modishly renovated maisonette, a voluble Australian 72year-0ld wearing round glasses and fashionable denim is regaling me with his new-year plans, which involve an elegant gas chamber stationed at a secret location in Switzerland and a happily dead body.

My hosts name is Philip Nitschke and hes invented a machine called Sarco. Short for sarcophagus, the slick, spaceship-like pod has a seat for one passenger en-route to the afterlife. It uses nitrogen to enact a pain-free, peaceful death from inert-gas asphyxiation at the touch of a button. With the help of his wife and colleague, the writer and lawyer Dr Fiona Stewart, Nitschke is ushering the death-on-demand movement towards a dramatic new milestone and their enthusiasm is palpable.

Weve got a number of people lined up already, actually, says Nitschke, whose unique CV (and previous occupation as a registered physician) has earned him the nickname Dr Death. The front-runner in the one-way journey to Switzerland is a New Zealander whom Nitschke has known for years. Shes not terminally ill, but is becoming increasingly disabled by macular degeneration something she finds intolerable after a lifetime of reading for pleasure. Shes also got an ideological, philosophical supportive commitment to the idea, explains Nitschke. Shes coming from a long way because she likes the concept and she sees it as the future.

Whether that future is utopian or dystopian depends on your perspective. Nitschke has twice been nominated for Australian of the Year for his work with Exit International, the end-of-life choices information and advocacy organisation he founded in 1997; activities include the publication of The Peaceful Pill, a continuously updated directory of information on how to end it all. But over the past two decades, members of the medical, psychiatric and even the pro-voluntary euthanasia communities have come to reject his brand of increasingly strident some say extreme advocacy for what he terms rational suicide: an individuals inalienable right to die in a manner of their choosing. His one time ally, the former UN medical director Michael Irwin, has branded him totally irresponsible for telling people how to obtain drugs that could help them end their own lives. And in August 2019 the grieving daughter of a man who took his life after contact with Exit International denounced Nitschke, saying the information you put out kills people who are not in a rational state of mind to make that decision.

Nitschke says he doesnt want to make a load of money from it, but theres Silicon Valley swagger in his latest projects ambition to disrupt the business of elective death through technology. The Sarco concept came to Nitschke while watching "Soylent Green", a 1970s sci-fi movie in which Charlton Heston, disgusted by a world ravaged by global warming, seeks euthanasia in the serenity of a customised government clinic. Its set in 2022. Eventually, Nitschke wants the 3D-printed Sarco to be accessible on demand to anyone, anywhere a sort of cosmic Uber into the great beyond. But for now, hes taking his invention to Switzerland because its the only jurisdiction worldwide in which, so long as theres no malicious purpose, assistance in a suicide is not a crime.

Nitschke and Stewart are much jollier than youd expect the right-to-die movements only power couple to be. Theyre full of well joie de vivre and arch banter about everything from Brexit to the roadworks that have denuded the front of their home of a beloved creeper. If its not dead, boy is it doing a bloody good impression of being dead, observes Nitschke, correctly. Stewart is at the kitchen table, processing applications from her laptop, and asking correspondents for proof of age. Officially, membership to Exit is restricted to the over 50s, and its members are mostly in jurisdictions where neither assisted suicide nor euthanasia are available which is to say, most of the countries in the world. Im the door bitch, she jokes.

Stewart had been a pro-choice advocate in Australia before meeting Nitschke at a festival of ideas in Brisbane in 2001.Later, she would be horrified by the state of his nascent organisation. She said, This is a mess youre not paying enough tax, your business is a shambles and it needs proper management. says Nitschke. She turned the whole thing around. I cant do much without her.

One of those opposed to Sarco is Paul Biegler, adjunct research fellow at the Monash Bioethics Centre in Victoria. You can make an argument that people have got a right to control the time of their death, he tells me over Skype, later. You could make an argument that rational suicide in the absence of a terminal illness is a defensible option for some people. But it really is a quantum leap to go from saying that people have a right to choose the time and nature of their dying to providing a mechanism for that to happen.

A comprehensive assessment of worldwide data in 2016 showed that, in areas where euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide are legal, 0.3-4.6% of deaths result from them, with more than 70% of cases involving patients with cancer. The report described these numbers as an indication that despite growing legalisation the practice remains rare. The Netherlands relatively permissive law stipulates that to qualify for either procedure an applicant must be shown to be experiencing unbearable suffering from which there is no prospect of recovery with no reasonable alternatives available to end that suffering. It has been criticised for not making a distinction between physical and mental distress, which could, in theory, justify euthanasia for psychiatric patients. Switzerlands law is looser foreigners can travel there and legally access physician-assisted suicide. The only two legal requirements a candidate is required to satisfy are the intention to end their life and soundness of mind. The general approach [for the latter] has been to get a ticket of approval from a psychiatrist, notes Nitschke.

The Sarco project bore fruit at the same time as subtle legal developments in Switzerland. Although theres nothing in Swiss law to state that a person must be terminally ill to be eligible for assisted suicide, in practice, says Nitschke, groups such as Dignitas have chosen to further medicalise the legislation, he says, because the only way they could get a doctor to prescribe [the lethal dose of the barbiturate] Nembutal was for the person to say they were sick.

This, he thinks, is specious and evidence of the medical professions creeping paternalism, which he finds abhorrent. [Doctors are] always there, setting themselves up as the gatekeepers when it comes to areas of human endeavour that they should have no role in because when you medicalise something youve got to have a medical controller, he says.

The great irony of Nitschkes career, in his view, is that he seems to spend as much time arguing with people on my own side as he does weathering the rebukes of the born again Christians. He recalls being denounced by Dignity in Dying (in its former incarnation as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) after he was detained, then released, by authorities at Heathrow airport on his way to host Exit workshops in the UK whilst carrying equipment for testing the safety of Nembutal, the barbiturate most often used for lethal injections, which terminally ill individuals were starting to obtain online from questionable sources.

They came out and said I was a danger to the movement. I found that annoying but I suppose what we were seeing was a difference in philosophy. I was telling people: get your own drugs, test your own drugs, be in control; they were saying: change the law, convince the politicians...

Its undeniable that Nitschkes campaigns have exhibited a certain PR-savvy pizzazz. He is the originator, no less, of the euthanasia flash mob, which took place to celebrate his 70th birthday and 20 years of Exit International (soundtrack: Bon Jovis "Its My Life", naturally). When he announced plans for Sarco, it was dismissed by some, says Nitschke, as a stunt, or some virtual creation in someones mind that didnt have any prospect of physical reality.

I can attest that the machine exists, having had the singular experience of reclining on a prototype at Nitschkes workshop on an industrial estate in Hillegom, South Holland, amidst the incongruous spring blaze of the tulip fields. Plus, scratch the surface of his provocative patter and theres a person a patient lurking behind each of his convictions.

Even aged 18, Nitschke demonstrated a flair for taking the law into his own hands after thieves stole the radio from his car, which was parked outside a dance. The police told him it was too small an affair to pursue so Nitschke spent two Saturday nights hiding in the boot with a .22 caliberrifle waiting for the thief to return. They did, and Nitschke marched them to a telephone and called the police, who arrested the thief and retrieved the stolen transistor.You should solve your own problems is how Id put it, says Nitschke.

Nitschke studied physics at the University of Adelaide before heading to the Northern Territory to work as an Aboriginal land-rights activist. Having studied for his medical degree with, he says, the intention of curing himself of hypochondria, in 1996 he became the first doctor in the world to administer a legal, lethal voluntary injection under the short-lived Rights of the Terminally Ill Act which, astonishingly, made the statute books in the Northern Territory by one vote.

Suddenly we had a law which meant terminally ill people could legally seek help from a doctor to die, he recalls. And when a patient came to me who was eligible, because he was dying of prostate cancer, as much as I was passionate about his right to die, I didnt want to be the one to do it, you know, so I built a machine that would downgrade euthanasia into assisted suicide. I would load it up and put the needle in the vein, all that stuff, but he was the one pressing the button.

That patients name was Bob Dent and Nitschkes invention, the Deliverance Machine listed on the Wikipedia page for notable euthanasia devices in history and now on display in Londons Science Museum lasted eight months and ended the lives of three more people before the law was overturned and assisting in a suicide became a serious crime again.

The other important aspect of the Deliverance and this certainly doesnt apply to Sarco was that it meant the user was able to die in his wifes arms, says Nitschke. The machine didnt take up much space so he was able to press the button, push the machine away and hold his wife, his usually robust voice crackles. I was on the other side of the room, he says.

Initially, Nitschke ran Exit workshops exclusively for the terminally ill. His self-described big, blinding road to Damascus change came courtesy of a French academic from Perth named Lisette Nigot, whom Nitschke met in 1999 when she was 76. She had no desire to live to see 80, and repeatedly approached Nitschke asking for information about suicide drugs.

I always said to her, thats ridiculous: youre not sick, go on a world cruise or write a book. And one day she said: Mind your own business. I make this decision you run around imposing your template on other people of what a life worth living is and dole out your information only to those people you think meet your criteria. Youre the worst example of insufferable medical paternalism Ive ever met.I immediately crumpled and fell apart and agreed with her. It really affected me. Theres a photograph of Nigot whose 2002 suicide-note declared Nitschke to be her inspiration on the wall of the workshop in Hillegom.

Nitschke developed Sarco with the help of Haarlem-based industrial designer Alexander Bannink. My original design looked more like a bathtub, says Nitschke, whereas Alexander really pushed the idea of making it resemble a vehicle, to give the sense of going somewhere. Engaging suppliers for the project has been interesting. When we first went to see a company down in Vlaardingen about building these strange aluminium tanks, I said to them, Im building some sort of death machine, do you want one of your logos on the side of it? They declined.

Sarcos raison dtre, admits Nitschke, is aesthetic. It obviates what he calls the yuck factor inherent in other tools of peaceful suicide, such as the humble plastic bag and gas. Thats just as efficient, he says. You can tell people over and over and over, as I do in my workshops, that its cheap, reliable, quick and legal, but they say, I dont care if its a peaceful death, I do not like the look of it and I dont want to be found like that.

Sarco, meanwhile, is positively Instagrammable. A sleek conveyance that wouldnt look out of place in a Tesla showroom, it consists of a detachable capsule a coffin, essentially mounted diagonally on a stand. Once inside, its user presses a button, prompting the release of nitrogen from a store-bought canister. From a physiological point of view, it is peaceful, says Nitschke. Its not the same as a rope around the neck, a pillow in the face or a head underwater these are mechanical obstructions to breathing and theyre terrifying, let me tell you.

Unlike previous Nitschke-devised death technologies, Sarco does not require the procurement or prescription of drugs. This is handy because Nitschke is no longer a doctor, having publicly burned his medical licence in 2015 following a dispute with the South Australian chapter of the Medical Board of Australia. It suspended Nitschke before offering to reinstate him providing he fulfil 26 criteria which included refraining from talking about euthanasia. Shortly afterwards, Nitschke and Stewart moved to the Netherlands on an entrepreneurial visa.

Then came the elective death in May 2018 of Nitschkes friend, the 104-year-old botanist David Goodall, who refused to declare any serious condition beyond being tired of life but was nevertheless allowed to kill himself by lethal infusion at the Life Circle facility in Basel. That set a precedent, says Nitschke.

Nitschke and his lawyers began the process of setting up what he vaguely calls an organisation in Switzerland to facilitate the use of Sarco for those who want to end it all for whatever reason. For now, hes keeping the specifics of the facility and its whereabouts close to his chest for fear of sabotage, but he says hes been talking to amenable local psychiatrists whose participation hell need because the soundness of mind criterion still stands and is confident of success.

Its late November Black Friday, in fact when I call Nitschke on his mobile for an update. He and Stewart are on the road with Sarco in tow, having retrieved a display model from a flooded Venice, where it has been on show at the Palazzo Michiel as part of the Venice design festival since May (pictured above).It was bloody awful, he says of the devastation in Venice. Fortunately Sarco was on the palazzos first floor, but still it had to be carried by people wearing thigh-high waders, put on a barge and floated out of the place.

I ask whether Nitschke is feeling nervous about a debut for which there can, after all, be no dress rehearsal. There is a great deal of apprehension and nervousness, he affirms, and I can sense it building now as I watch the calendar days ticking down. Im getting more and more anxious about it because I well and truly recognise that theres a lot hinging on this for other people whose wishes are very important to me and, while I want things to run smoothly theres always the possibility of some bizarre eventuality you cant predict. But once Ive got the comfort of seeing the successful initial uses of the machine I think Im going to be very pleased indeed.

He suspects the reaction against Sarco has been so strong because the whole ethos of the device flies in the face of the current Western paradigm, which dictates that all human effort and endeavour should be directed towards living longer at all costs, and any death is perceived as some fundamental failure that must be conducted shamefully, privately and in secret.

He thinks technology is affording us the opportunity to consider how the end of life might be reframed as a cause for some celebration or at least a momentous event, as it has been regarded by other cultures and in times gone by.

I ask the obvious question: what a successful death might look like in his own case. It would depend, he says, on the circumstances.But I know what I dont want. I dont want to be stuffed full of tubes with doctors hovering over me, pleased with themselves for keeping my heart beating for another five minutes, eking out every last painful second. That, to me, is dystopia.

Original post:

A design for death: meeting the bad boy of the euthanasia movement | 1843 - The Economist 1843

The story in brief: Afflicted by a rare neuromuscular disease, Vervoort was wheelchair-bound by age 20, amid debilitating pain that robbed her of sleep. She turned to sports for some relief. Remarkably, she beat the reigning champion to win a sprinting gold medal at the 2012 Paralympic Games, becoming a nationwide celebrity, and won silver and bronze at the 2016 games,

Meanwhile, Belgium had passed one of the worlds most liberal programs for doctor-assisted suicide in 2002. Till then, Vervoort had never thought of killing herself. But after conferring with physician Wim Distelmans, Belgiums leading euthanasia advocate, she filed paperwork to end her life when she wished, but delayed as her athletic career thrived.

When she retired in 2016 and became a public euthanasia spokeswoman, Times European sports correspondent Andrew Keh closely tracked her situation for the article. On October 22, Distelmans injected lethal poison that took Vervoort's life at age 40.

Journalism 101 classes denounce the New York Daily Newss infamous page one photo of a woman being executed in an electric chair under the bold headline DEAD!

That was back in 1928.

There was no such public or journalistic uproar in 2019 over the Timess two-page display of Lynsey Addarios photo that showed Distelmans killing Vervoort, though unlike in 1928 she assented to this.

Despite the opportunity offered by 44 pages we never learned in any detail why Vervoorts parents were philosophically uncomfortable with her decision for death. Nor were we told what her sister believes.

In other words, there was the usual religious neglect.

Readers might ask whether this family was totally divorced from church influences and how this shaped matters. And there were other important omissions, as well.

The inserts lavish white space also meant there was ample room for a non-partisan sidebar reviewing the secular and religious arguments, con as well as pro, in this longstanding debate, perhaps written by the papers talented but underused religion writer Elizabeth Dias. Another helpful sidebar could have summarized the state of the laws in the 50 states and the particulars with the nations that permit mercy-killing.

Vervoort had been a motivational speaker on living with severe physical challenges. This aspect especially troubled Taylor Hyatt, writing online for Tonjours Vivant (Not Dead Yet), Canadas advocate for the disabled, chronically ill and aged. He worried that because Vervoort made suicide a public matter and sought to influence such decisions by others, young fans could be motivated to follow in her footsteps.

Hyatt raised other concerns. Did she receive appropriate palliative care to counteract her pain? Did she have a peer counselors support as she grappled with the drastic change of retirement and worsening condition? If Vervoort was immersed in pro-suicide messages, did anyone match this with encouragement to live?

Since such vital questions in mercy-killing cases were left unanswered and commonly raised cautions left unmentioned, the lavish Times coverage was both a breakthrough and a journalistic failure in terms of basic public information.

Sources: The BBC posts pro-euthanasia material here. This anti site links to vast resources on the controversy including 100-plus articles just on Belgium.

Continue reading here:

The New York Times offers massive 'special report' on euthanasia -- that's full of holes - GetReligion

The Australian Christian Lobby has denounced euthanasia legislation passed this week by the West Australian parliament as the most dangerous and unsafe in the world.

ACL WA state director Peter Abetz says the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill passed this week in the WA upper house, amid emotional scenes, offers fewer protections than legislation recently passed in Victoria and goes further even than controversial legislation in the Netherlands.

Patients may take the lethal medication without any supervision Peter Abetz

Eternity has been able to verify that doctors and nurses will be allowed to raise Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) with patients but an amendment was passed that ensured they could do so only if they outlined treatment and palliative care options as well.

In Victoria, health care practitioners are not permitted to initiate discussion of VAD with patients but only respond to a patients requests.

The West Australian amendment came about as a compromise after an amendment for doctors not to be able to raise the subject was defeated.

The defeated amendment was moved by Labor MP Tony Buti, who has a daughter with a mild intellectual impairment. He was concerned she might be swayed into considering VAD by a figure of authority such as a doctor if she were facing a terminal illness.

In an article based on his second reading speech, Buti said: My eldest child has a disability. Her name is Alkira and later this year she turns 26. She is in many aspects a capable person. But it is doubtful that she will ever be able to live independently.

When I think of Alkiras future without [my wife] Mandy or I being around, I become anxious. Unless you are in a similar situation, it is difficult to truly understand the anxiety we as parents have on that front.

I worry how someone like Alkira, and for that matter, many elderly people, may be susceptible to being unduly influenced into prematurely ending their lives, even if only by weeks.

Buti told Eternity that while the amendment that was passed did not go as far as he wanted, it was much better than what was in the original bill.

However, Abetz said ACL had many concerns about the lack of safeguards in the bill.

Patients may take the lethal medication without any supervision, which even controversial legislation in the Netherlands does not allow, he said.

The medication is left with the person and that can be taken at any time that suits them without anybody being present and even the Dutch dont allow that.

Some people have complications when they take the poison so, just from a patient welfare perspective, its not a safe thing to do. There should be a doctor present.

Its a poison that can kill people and should that just be left in the patients top drawer, or wherever theres a safety issue.

A spokesperson for WA Health Minister Roger Cook said Victoria, Canada and nine US states all permit self-administration, and allow the person to take the medication home.

There is no evidence from the overseas jurisdictions that this cannot be managed safely. In WA, Schedule 4 and 8 poisons, which will make up the voluntary assisted dying substance, are already dispensed to people and many keep them at home. The WA Bill incorporates elements of the Medicines and Poisons Act into the legislation which offers increased security around the lethal substance.

A safety Plan for the medication will form part of the administration process and it is also a requirement under the code of conduct (Medical Board of Australia) for practitioners discuss management options with their patients. This code is issued under section 39 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2010.

Before prescribing the voluntary assisted dying substance, the prescriber must provide the patient with information about appropriate storage, preparation, how to self-administer and if necessary, disposal of any unused or remaining substance (Clause 68). When supplying the prescribed substance, the authorised supplier must also provide this information to the recipient (Clause 71).

Christian aged care services such as Bethesda Health Care and St John of God in WA have already said they will not permit voluntary assisted dying to take place on their premises.

However, Abetz is concerned that while doctors may refuse to offer VAD out of a conscientious objection, they are required to provide information to a patient about how to end their lives.

It doesnt protect the conscientious objection of doctors because they are required to be an accessory to a persons suicide, he said.

The legislation says that if you have a conscientious objection as a doctor, you still have to provide the patient with the information from the Health Department that will show the person how they can go about ending their life and that makes the doctor an accessory to someone elses suicide.

He said this flies in the face of the Criminal Code under which it is a serious offence to be an accessory to suicide.

If I, for example, were to say to somebody who wants to end their life prematurely, I can print this off the internet and here it is, I can go to jail or get a $10,000 fine and yet a doctor is obligated to provide that documentation. We think that is a serious issue.

A ministerial spokesperson commented: While the Bill acknowledges the ethical, moral and professional objections to voluntary assisted dying held by some practitioners, it also recognises the need to facilitate timely and appropriate access for people who request voluntary assisted dying. To balance these needs, the Bill does not oblige practitioners to refer persons seeking voluntary assisted dying directly on, but does require them to inform the patient of their objection or refusal and give the person information about voluntary assisted dying.

This is consistent with Medical Board of Australia and AMA professional ethical obligations of doctors who are required to not impede access and to provide sufficient information to patients.

As in the Victorian legislation, a person who is diagnosed by two doctors as having a condition likely to cause death within six months (or 12 months for a neurodegenerative condition) is eligible to access VAD.

They would not be in the best position to make an informed decision. Peter Abetz

However, Abetz claimed that there was no provision in the legislation for a specialist in the condition the patient was suffering from to be involved in making that diagnosis.

So if youre dying of cancer, you can get two orthopaedic surgeons to decide that you are going to die within six months and yet theyve got no expertise whatsoever in that field. We think thats absolutely appalling.

However, the ministerial spokesperson denied this.

The Bill requires the doctor to refer to a registered health practitioner with appropriate skills and training, where the first doctor is unable to determine diagnosis or prognosis.

The Bill also provides that a doctor may have regard to relevant information prepared by another health practitioner.

Abetz said there was no need to check whether the person was suffering from depression, when they would not be in the best position to make an informed decision.

However, the ministerial spokesperson said this was also false.

Each of the doctors must assess decision-making capacity, including whether there is any mental illness that may potential impair capacity.

The Bill provides that where there is doubt about capacity, there must be a comprehensive assessment of the person in accordance with the assessment process provided under the Mental Health Act 2014.

Abetz added that there was no provision in the legislation to require family members or the treating doctor to be informed of a patients decision to end their life through VAD.

He was also concerned that there was no provision for checking if a person had been coerced into accessing VAD, other than asking a direct question.

Say an elderly mother is dying of cancer and shes got a significant estate, and if the son has a business thats struggling financially but he knows hes the beneficiary of the will, he can say hey, mum, dont you really think you should be ending it for yourself because youre really suffering. You know, can talk her into it theres lots of subtle ways that people can be coerced.

All the doctor has to do is ask have you been coerced? and if a person says no, theres no further questions need to be asked.

West Australians suffering from terminal illness deserve proper palliative care, not disposal by euthanasia. Peter Abetz

The ministerial spokesperson said participation in voluntary assisted dying must be completely voluntary.

Furthermore, it is fundamental that a patient is not being coerced or unduly influenced to request voluntary assisted dying, or participate in any way in the process leading up to and including the administration of a voluntary assisted dying substance.

There are two independent medical practitioners required to assess whether a patient is acting voluntarily and without coercion. Furthermore, these clinicians may refer the assessment to a practitioner skilled in this area if they are of the opinion that they cannot make an accurate assessment themselves. They may also refer the matter to existing authorities, such as the WA Police, if they believe that a patient is being coerced to undergo voluntary assisted dying. The Bill makes it a crime to unduly influence a patient in such a manner.

GPs are well placed to identify patients at risk of, or experiencing, elder abuse. There are clinical screening tools that are suitable for use with older people and can be readily incorporated into assessment procedures. This would form part of the mandatory training.

Abetz urged the parliament, media and authorities to apply the strictest scrutiny during a planned 18-month implementation period for the legislation. He also commended the courage and determination of the 11 Legislative Councillors who voted against the VAD Bill.

The Bill sets a very dangerous precedent, leaving practical details of implementing the VAD scheme to the discretion of the CEO of the Health Department, avoiding parliamentary scrutiny, Abetz concluded.

It now falls to the press, parliamentary bodies, authorities and the public to be vigilant every step of the way along the implementation to highlight what Britains House of Lords concluded, namely that it is simply impossible to make such legislation safe.

West Australians suffering from terminal illness deserve proper palliative care, not disposal by euthanasia. We look forward to a future parliament repealing this dangerous legislation.

Read the rest here:

Euthanasia law the most dangerous in the world - Eternity News

WA Liberal MP Nick Goiran, a key opponent of euthanasia who was instrumental in amending the WA legislation, counselled caution for other states considering the change.

Mr Goiran lost an amendment delaying the introduction of the laws until the effects of Victoria's voluntary assisted dying regime could be analysed.

"It's verifiably the case that this is the most dangerous legislation that's ever passed," he said.

"What does that mean for other jurisdictions in Australia that are going to be contemplating this, whether it be Queensland, South Australia, whoever wants to be next?

"Even for those jurisdictions, why would you even go down this path until you've actually got some data from Victoria and Western Australia on what's working and what's not working?

"To just go and launch on some perceived momentum is just reckless."

On Friday former prime minister Kevin Rudd urged the state governments to "hasten very slowly" on voluntary assisted dying.

"If it takes a much longer period of time than some of the legislative proponents would want to achieve a reasonable consensus on these questions through parliamentary deliberation, then let's take the time, Mr Rudd told The Australian newspaper.

"My instinct on any life question is to hasten very slowly.

"These are complex bioethical questions. Nothing is more fundamental than life."

In a written statement released after the passage of WA's laws, Go Gentle took aim at Christians who had opposed them.

Loading

It said WA had rejected "the paternalistic demands about how we die, prosecuted by the hierarchies of Australias Catholic and Anglican churches and so fiercely defended by their surrogates in medicine and politics".

"Their outdated insistence that only their compassion is true compassion has been, as in Victoria in 2017, firmly rejected," the Go Gentle statement said.

"A vocal and powerful minority remains fiercely opposed to assisted dying and would repeal, or make unworkable, this law if they could; they must not be allowed to undo what the people of WA so clearly want."

Perth Catholic Archbishop Timothy Costello said accusing those who opposed voluntary assisted dying of lacking compassion for those who suffered was a "callous and unworthy smear".

"Do people really believe that so many members of the medical profession who have raised concerns about VAD are cold-hearted and unfeeling?" he said.

"Do we really think that ministers of religion, so many of whom have accompanied dying people in their last days, do not feel the anguish of watching someone in pain and distress?

"Do we really imagine that only those who speak in favour of VAD, often because of personal experience of watching their loved ones die, are the only people who have accompanied parents, partners, children and friends as they die, sometimes in great suffering and distress?"

Nathan is WAtoday's political reporter.

Follow this link:

Eastern states urged to wait as campaigners say they now have 'no excuse' on euthanasia - The Age

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, and Sultana Afdhal, CEO of the World Innovation Summit for Health, during a symposium at the Vatican to discuss faith and ethical considerations around palliative care and care of the elderly.(Photo: WISH)

A symposium taking place at the Vatican has challenged society to walk side by side with the weak, the ill and the elderly in the face of a growing "culture of euthanasia".

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said that the "terminally ill and elderly, especially those affected by mental health issues, are being pushed to the margins of society" as if "they have nothing more to offer, they are not necessary, they are a burden on society".

"This is a cruel society," he said.

The Archbishop made the comments in an address in Italian to open a two-day symposium on religion and medical ethics at the Vatican organised by Qatar's World Innovation Summit for Health (WISH), the British Journal of Medical Ethics, and the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Speaking through a translator, he quoted the words of Pope Francis in calling for an end to a "culture of waste" and a "culture of neglect" around the care of the weakest as he challenged medical professionals and ethicists at the symposium to refuse the "temptation to take shortcuts" through practices like euthanasia and assisted suicide.

"We need to promote a culture of care, a culture of accompaniment, a culture of palliative care everywhere in the world," he said.

"It is fundamental to develop a culture of care that allows us to offer love until the time of death."

While pro-euthanasia campaigners have championed the so-called 'right to die', Archbishop Paglia countered this notion by saying that every man and every woman had a right to live in the human family.

"Palliative care is a human right," he said.

He went on to call for a renewed understanding of medicine that does not regard it as a failure if a patient cannot be healed.

"It is not true that there is nothing more to do," he said.

"Presence is important, accompanying is important, relieving people from suffering, showing love, holding the person's hand," he said.

He went on to warn that the elderly were "particularly exposed to the risks" of a society increasingly open to euthanasia, at a time when the population of Western countries is increasingly ageing.

"We the elderly, we are too many, too expensive, and we become a burden. They ask us to go away," he said.

"It is fundamental to rediscover the culture of accompaniment until the time of death."

The symposium also heard from Catholic palliative care specialist Professor Carlos Centeno, who sought to reclaim the language of "dignity" in dying from pro-euthanasia campaigners who argue that assisted suicide offers this for the terminally ill.

"We are in favour of a death with dignity. But is dignity to choose the moment of death? For Christians, no," he said.

"For Christians it is to affirm that natural moment of death. For Christians, the dignity is in the person; it is intrinsic. It cannot be taken."

He argued, though, that the dignity of the terminally ill could be compromised if they were not well cared for, if their symptoms were not managed properly, or if the person felt alone in their suffering.

He said that from his own experience of working in palliative care, "Many times, they [the terminally ill] want to live because they are being cared for."

He said that the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which a man has been robbed and left to die, offered an important lesson in how society should care for those who are weak, poor or close to death.

"Dignity is a truly Christian value," he said. "We Christians recognise the dignity in every human being, always."

Sultana Afdhal, WISH CEO, said that interfaith dialogue around these issues could lead to a more holistic understanding of care "that considers a person's spiritual needs as well as their physical and mental needs".

"Interfaith and medical interdisciplinary dialogue about palliative care and the mental health of older members in our community is essential in helping to establish a common ground to find more effective ways to bridge differences in faith-based ethical approaches," she said.

Read the original post:

'Palliative care is a human right' - symposium at the Vatican challenges 'culture of euthanasia' - ChristianToday

DELTA, British Columbia, December 12, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) British Columbias government is threatening to penalize a non-faith-based hospice if it fails to follow its directives and allow its patients to be killed on-site through a medically-assisted death program.

The province could go as far as to shut down the Delta Hospice Society, which operates the 10-bed Irene Thomas Hospice in Ladner, BC, says Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

New Democratic Party (NDP) health minister Adrian Dix has given the society until Thursday to produce plans to comply with the Fraser Health Authoritys policy that all its facilities excepting faith-based institutions that can object on religious grounds provide euthanasia, the Globe and Mail reported.

Its the latest turn in a long-running battle that began in September 2016, when Fraser Health Authority adopted its policy on euthanasia, euphemistically referred to as medical aid in dying (MAiD), which the Justin Trudeau Liberal government legalized that June.

Hospice founder and then-executive director Nancy Macey refused to allow euthanasia at Irene Thomas, arguing that patients would need to be transferred to another facility to be killed because lethally injecting them was incompatible with palliative care and violated the hospices constitution, which states that it will not hasten a patients death.

The hospice is under contract with the health authority, which funds it $1.3 million annually, or slightly less than half its operating budget the rest of which comes from private donations and owns the land on which the building sits, which it leases to the hospice, according to the Vancouver Sun.

Fraser Health Authority then issued an edict in February 2018 that the hospice provide euthanasia onsite, but the society said it would not do so.

Macey and Janice Strukoff, an administrative leader for society, told the Vancouver Sun at the time that euthanizing patients not only is against the hospices constitution, but also stoked fears and anxieties of vulnerable patients and would traumatize not only them, but also staff and volunteers.

Hospice palliative care is not about hastening death and we object to the bullying currently taking place in B.C., Strukoff said.

The health authority then mandated in September 2018 that hospices could not transfer a patient to another facility to be euthanized, according to the Vancouver Sun.

And in September 2019, the hospice board fired Macey and voted to allow euthanasia, it reported.

However, following a membership drive, a new board was elected at the November 28 annual general meeting. It voted to reverse the policy to allow euthanasia, arguing that doing so was against the societys constitution, dismissed the acting executive director, and appointed a new one.

The Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians and Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association backed the Delta societys decision in a joint November 27 Call to Action.

Hospice palliative care and MAiD substantially differ in multiple areas including in philosophy, intention and approach. Hospice palliative care does not seek to hasten death or intentionally end life, the statement said.

MAiD is not part of hospice palliative care; it is not an extension of palliative care, nor is it one of the tools in the palliative care basket. National and international hospice palliative care organizations are unified in the position that MAiD is not part of the practice of hospice palliative care, it added.

Fraser Health Authority responded to the decision by insisting the hospice had to comply with its policy and met with members of the board on December 5. Now Dix is suggesting the province will pull funding if not more drastic punishment if the hospice doesnt bow to the euthanasia rule.

[W]e do live in a free society, Dix told the Globe and Mail.

Delta Hospice Society can decide that it doesnt want to continue to receive support from the Fraser Health Authority in its mission. They can choose to do that. You can absolutely have it your way. But you cant have it both ways.

But Schadenberg says the minister and the health authority are overstepping their roles by forcing and bullying the hospice to provide euthanasia.

He has launched a petition to Dr. Victoria Lee, president of the Fraser Health Authority, and to minister Dix supporting the society.

The results of this battle will be far-reaching, Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.

If the Delta Hospice closes, the residents of Delta will lose the 10-bed hospice that is known for providing excellent end-of-life care, he said.

If the Delta Hospice is forced to do euthanasia, then all Canadian hospice groups will be forced to do euthanasia.

To sign the EPCC petition supporting Delta Hospice, go here.

See the original post here:

Provincial govt tries to bully Canadian hospice into killing sick patients - Lifesite

QUEBEC CITY, December 6, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) The Quebec government is opening public consultations on allowing doctors toeuthanize sick people with Alzheimers, dementia, and other degenerative diseases who are no longer able togive their consent.

Coalition Avenir Qubecs Health minister Danielle McCann announced at a press conference last week that all parties support consultations on the recommendations of an expert panel that spent 18 months studying the issue of prior consent, reported the Montreal Gazette.

The panel recommended that individuals who received a diagnosis of a serious and incurable illness, including Alzheimers or dementia, can give an advance directive to be killed at some future time when they are no longer competent to consent.

It also recommended authorizing a third party to inform physicians of the existence of a prior consent in the event a person loses their faculties. The third party authorization would be kept in a government registry as a permanent record, the Gazette reported.

Quebecs current euthanasia law specifies that Quebecers cannot be euthanized unless they fulfill all the following criteria: They are at least 18 years of age; suffer from a serious, incurable illness; are in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; experience constant and unbearable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be relieved in a way they deem tolerable; are at the end of life; and can give informed consent.

We dedicate this announcement to all those Quebecers living with serious and incurable illnesses and who are saddled with persistent and intolerable suffering, McCann said at the conference.

We are giving them the power and the freedom to decide and we do this while respecting their will, values and dignity, she added.

But Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, warned that advance directives means people will be killed against their will.

This is absolutely crazy, because it will allow euthanasia of someone who may never have wanted it, who might have in fear in an earlier state felt this was what they wanted, and when the time comes, they lose their right to change their mind, he told LifeSiteNews.

The euthanasia lobbyists say its all about freedom of choice and autonomy, thats how they sell it. But once you become incompetent, you wont have a right to change your mind, and this becomes the problem, added Schadenberg.

Schadenberg's concerns are echoed by Quebec anti-euthanasia group Vivre dans la Dignit.

Quebecs current law requires that people be allowed to change their minds until the last moment, it said in a press release rejecting the panels recommendations.

A new incapacity implies that we can no longer respond to this demand, often to the displeasure of relatives, the Vivre dans la Dignit statement said.

But this principle of consent to the end is paramount, it stressed. Remember that it makes the difference between execution and euthanasia.

Indeed, advance directives led to the horror of a 74-year-old Dutch woman being forcibly euthanized in 2016, Schadenberg pointed out.

The woman had been diagnosed with Alzheimers four years earlier, and wrote a statement saying she wanted to be euthanized before entering a care home, but added: I want to be able to decide (when to die) while still in my senses and when I think the time is right, according to the BBC.

Deciding the time was right, a doctor slipped a sedative into her coffee, but the woman came to and began struggling. The doctor then told relatives to hold her down while lethally injecting her.

She didnt want to die, but they did it anyway. This is exactly what theyre talking about allowing in Quebec, Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.

Moreover, a court in The Hague exonerated the doctor September 11, 2019.The judges ruled the physician acted in the patients best interests, and that not euthanizing the woman would have undermined her wishes, the BBC reported.

The same day as the Dutch ruling, a Quebec judge struck down as unconstitutional the requirement that an individual must be near death to be legally euthanized.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Christine Baudouins ruling quashed both the federal Bill C-14 eligibility requirement that an individuals death be reasonably foreseeable, and Quebecs end of life requirement.

Baudoin gave both governments six months to revise their legislation, but Quebec opted not to appeal the judgment.

Moreover, Trudeau said during the election campaign that if re-elected, his government would act on Baudouins decision.

And the federal Liberals are also talking about having consultations on advance directives, Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.

The euthanasia lobby is pushing for that, he said. So the question is, whos going to get it done first, the federal government or the Quebec government?

Quebec, he noted in a recent blog, has its share of problems with euthanasia.

Between Dec. 10, 2015, and March 31, 2018, 1,664 people were euthanized in the province. Between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019, there were 1331 reported euthanasia deaths according to the most recent provincial euthanasia report, Schadenberg wrote.

Thirteenof the reported deaths did not fit the criteria of the law and three of the euthanasia deaths were for hip fractures.

Go here to read the rest:

Quebec considers allowing doctors to euthanize dementia patients without their active consent - Lifesite

Photo by

Christian Bickel/Wikimedia Commons

A poll conducted in November this year shows that 77.7% of Icelanders support the practice of assisted dying. The study was made by Lfsviringar (Life of Dignity), an Icelandic association for the education about assisted dying, and conducted by Maskna. Icelanders also showed to favour the Dutch method for the practice.

In 2017, Lfsviringar was born with the purpose of creating awareness and bring forward discussion and education into the subject of euthanasia. The theme was not new to Icelandic society, for already in a 2015 poll 75.5% of the respondents showed support for the practice. Also in 2017, seven members of Parliament, from different parties, came forward in an effort to legalize assisted suicide in the country. For their proposal to be successful they needed 58 letters of support, they received some, including one from the National Association of Senior Citizens, but failed to go forward with the bill.

The Dutch method is the one that retains more popularity between voters. The Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act is in practice in The Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia, and Luxembourg. The Dutch were the first to legalise the practice in 2002, making assisted suicide viable if a physician holds the conviction that the request by the patient was voluntary and well-considered if he holds the conviction that the patients suffering was lasting and unbearable, and if the patient holds the conviction that there was no other reasonable solution for the situation he was in.

From the 2015 poll to the one conducted this year, there were changes in the way that the question was asked, making it more detailed. While in 2015, Icelanders had to answer to Are you in favour or against that an individual can get help to end their life if he has an incurable disease (palliative death)?. This year, the people surveyed were asked to respond the following Do you agree or disagree that an individual can be helped to end their life (assisted dying) if they are suffering from a condition or disease that has been assessed incurable and that they are experiencing to be unbearable?.

Granted that, in 2019, the majority chose to respond positively, 6,8% said they were highly or rather opposed, and 15.4% were not sure. When questioned about why they opposed assisted suicide, some of the respondents said that it was contrary to the moral and professional obligations of doctors (23.5%), others believed that palliative care was sufficient to alleviate suffering (21.7%), some even stated it was against their moral beliefs (20.4%), but only 3.6% claimed religious reasons. The top concern between participants was that the legalisation of the practice would lead to the misuse of it.

Curiously, people from different age groups, locations and even political parties responded very differently to the survey. While 85% of 18 to 29-year-olds responded in agreement, only 63.4% of people older than 60 years were on the same page. People in Reykjavk represented the biggest percentage of people answering in favour (80.7%), while it was in the citys neighboring municipalities where the lowest percentages were seen (74.4%), followed by the north of the country (75.5%). Regarding the political views of the participants, a great percentage of The Pirate Partys voters (86.8%) were positive to the poll in contrast with the voters for The Progressive Party (68.3%).

Assisted suicide raises a lot of questions from all sides of the subject. While some believe it shouldnt be done by medical professionals because they consider it goes against the Hippocratic oath, others would say that if these professionals swear to do no harm, the assisted suicide of patients in irreversible pain is in agreement with the oath.

In 2017 an Australian reader of The Grapevine responded to one of our articles on the same subject with his own experience. He wanted other readers to know that enforced prolonged life, when the quality of life is lost, is a fate far worse than death.

Related

See the rest here:

Over Three Fourths Of Icelanders Support Right To Assisted Dying - Reykjavk Grapevine

Every voter and politician must resist attacks on the right to life, and Catholic politicians must do so as both a human rights matter and as a fundamental matter of our faith, Northern Irelands Catholic bishops have said ahead of the December 12 UK general election.

We have consistently said that the equal right to life, and love, of a mother and her unborn child is so fundamental to the common good of every society that citizens deserve the fullest participation in the democratic debate about the legislation which governs it, Northern Irelands bishops said on December 5.

Northern Irelands strong laws against abortion were drastically weakened Oct. 21, under an act of the UK Parliament that took effect due to the absence of a ruling executive in the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly.

This was a tragic day for the unborn children who will now never bless our world with their unique and precious lives, the bishops said. It was also a sad day for our local democracy as this draconian Westminster abortion legislation was introduced over the heads of local citizens.

The right to life is not given to us by any law or government, and any law that removes this right is unjust and must be resisted by every voter and political representative, they continued. For Catholic politicians this is not only a matter of protecting the human right to life but also a fundamental matter of our faith. Voters have a duty to inform themselves on the position of election candidates in respect of their willingness to support and cherish equally the lives of mothers and their unborn children.

The general election will be the UKs third since 2015. Normally they would be held every five years.

The elections in England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland will determine who will fill a total of 650 parliamentary seats in the House of Commons.

Brexit is a central issue. Prime Minister Boris Johnson hopes the early election will increase the number of Members of Parliament for his Conservative Party, making his Brexit plans easier to achieve.

The Conservative Party currently leads a governing coalition, with confidence and supply from Northern Irelands Democratic Unionist Party. The Conservatives Party has not mentioned abortion in its most recent party platform.

Sinn Fein, a nationalist party putting forward MP candidates in Northern Ireland, backs legal abortion up to 12 weeks into pregnancy. However, its MPs do not take their seats in parliament.

Two UK opposition parties, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, have made the full decriminalization of abortion part of their party platforms. Recently, the Liberal Democrats deselected a former MP as a candidate because of his Catholic faith and views on same-sex marriage and abortion.

Party members are required to support these party platform stands on abortion. The move has drawn criticism from Church leaders like Bishop Mark Davies of Shrewsbury.

As Christians, we must express the gravest concern that a number of political parties have dispensed with considerations of individual conscience making unequivocal manifesto commitments to deny the unborn child the right to life, Davies said on December 5.

I cannot fail to draw your attention to this further radical assault upon the sanctity of human life, presented as a program for government and the danger of discarding the rights of individual conscience in determining the right to life of the unborn child, he said.

The bishop asked for prayers for candidates and for light in making the difficult choices which an election involves.

Both Catholic and Anglican leaders have criticized the pro-abortion rights party platforms.

Christine Hardman and James Newcombe, who are Church of England bishops, have written an open letter on behalf of the House of Bishops promising the Anglican bishops will vigorously challenge any attempt to extend abortion provision beyond the current 24-week limit. Their letter responded to 383 clergy and laity who in their letter to The Times objected to the manifesto promises to decriminalize abortion.

The Catholic Bishops of England and Wales issued a November 29 statement urging voters to consider issues of human rights and the dignity of human life.

The English and Welsh bishops laid out several criteria for voters to consider when choosing their new MPs, foremost of which is respect for human life, including in the womb, and including care for those who are terminally ill and dying while resisting the false compassion of assisted suicide or euthanasia.

The fate of Northern Ireland as the United Kingdom prepares to leave the European Union was another major focus of Northern Irelands Catholic bishops. They said the outcome of Brexit will have a significant impact on our fragile peace and on our political, economic and social life.

Competent voices are needed to enunciate our concerns and we encourage voters to choose candidates who value positive relationships within and beyond these islands, they said.

Other topics of the bishops letter included welfare reform, housing and homelessness, and human trafficking.

The major significance of the approaching election brings an even greater responsibility on us, as followers of Jesus, to reflect in a conscientious and informed way on the breadth of issues involved, the bishops said. They called for prayers for political candidates and respectful discussion about the issues at stake.

The Bishops Conference of Scotland also stressed the right to life as fundamental. The bishops pre-election message did not endorse any political party or candidate, but said abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia are always morally unacceptable, and that all politicians should be urged to resist the decriminalization of abortion, which leads toward abortion on demand for any reason.

The Catholic Parliamentary Office, an agency of the Scottish bishops conference, also reports on its website the votes of politicians on several bills, organized by parliamentary constituency.

These votes include the decriminalization of abortion, which the office said would clear the way for abortion on demand, for any reason, up to birth. MPs votes on a bill to legalize assisted suicide are also recorded, as are how MPs voted on the parliamentary act which imposed permissive abortion laws and same-sex marriage on Northern Ireland.

Distributions of a leaflet version of this information by priests in the Angus area prompted accusations of favoritism towards the local Conservative Party candidate because the leaflets noted the Scottish National Party candidates pro-abortion rights stand, the newspaper The National reports.

A spokesman for the Scottish Catholic Church rejected this claim.

As you will be aware 59 different messages were sent out each one referencing the voting record of the incumbent MP. They show a range of voting behavior and do not indicate support or otherwise for any candidate, rather they offer publicly available information to parishioners on the most fundamental moral issues addressed in the last parliament, the spokesman said.

See original here:

As general election nears, bishops across UK stress right to life - Catholic Herald Online

ROME Helping society move from a throwaway culture to one that cares is the goal of a Dec. 11-12 conference being co-organized by the Vatican.

The sick and the elderly are considered people who have nothing left to offer, said Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the head of the Vaticans Pontifical Academy for Life.

They are not productive, they are not useful, they constitute a weight for our societies that have efficiency as the absolute goal. This is a challenge denounced by Pope Francis: The throwaway culture.

Titled Religion and Medical Ethics Symposium: Palliative Care and Mental Health of the Elderly, the event will have the participation of 250 people from all over the world.

The conference is being co-hosted by Qatars World Innovation Summit for Health (WISH), created in 2012, with the support of the BMJ, the UKs most prominent medical journal.

The interfaith nature of this event, and the involvement of experts from both faith and medical backgrounds, will provide a priceless opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the very real ethical dilemmas experienced by healthcare practitioners from different spiritual backgrounds across our world when dealing with these sensitive and yes, difficult subjects, said Dr. Sultana Afdhal, Chief Executive Officer of WISH.

Afdhal, Paglia and BMJ executive editor Dr. Kamran Abbasi spoke to journalists about the conference on Tuesday.

Although the Catholic Church is both in favor of palliative care and against assisted suicide and euthanasia, Afdhal said Islam doesnt have one singular position; though in Qatar, a fatwa was introduced in 1999 regarding a patients right to choose not to be resuscitated.

According to Paglia, what brings all three organizations together is the goal of creating a culture of palliative care, both to respond to the temptation that comes from euthanasia and assisted suicide, but above all, to grow a culture of care that is able to offer loving care up until death.

The prelate noted that, on the one hand, society is growing old and on the other hand, theres a proliferation of the culture of euthanasia because terminally ill patients and the elderly are considered disposable in a world that is centered on profit and economy, and healthcare often cedes to a mentality of accountants.

Even when a patient is terminally ill, Paglia argued, medicine can still care for the human person, even when it cant heal it.

Afdhal, who flew in from Qatar for the symposium, said that she is convinced the sharing of knowledge between religions and medical healthcare experts can enrich both, as we will all gain from understanding how faiths respond to these issues.

There are Christians in Qatar, and there are Muslims outside of our country, she said.

The dialogue, she said, can help build a common ground, that will help find more effective ways to bridge differences in ethical approaches based on faith, whether actual or perceived.

The actual alleviation of suffering, she said, requires a willingness to consider a persons spiritual needs, as well as their physical and mental ones.

Abbasi said that the conference is in line with the core values of the BMJ: Being transparent, open and trusted; patient-centered; evidence-based; and, more broadly, promoting a healthier world.

When it comes to caring for the elderly and the terminally ill, he said, religious beliefs and evidence must work in harmony to help patients and families face challenges that come with old age and disease.

At a moment of global discord, disharmony and danger, Abbasi said, it is symbolic that we are gathering here at the Vatican to show the power of people from all faiths and backgrounds in coming together to solve the worlds problems.

Afdhal acknowledged participants would be discussing some very emotive matters during the two-day conference, such as suicide among older members of society and the end of life care for children.

I realize these will be very difficult areas for us to debate. However, it is both right and important that we do not shy away from these topics, and I believe our discussions can only benefit those who are affected and afflicted by such issues, she said.

Follow Ins San Martn on Twitter: @inesanma

Crux is dedicated to smart, wired and independent reporting on the Vatican and worldwide Catholic Church. That kind of reporting doesnt come cheap, and we need your support. You can help Crux by giving a small amount monthly, or with a onetime gift. Please remember, Crux is a for-profit organization, so contributions are not tax-deductible.

Read this article:

Vatican to host interfaith meeting on end-of-life issues - Crux: Covering all things Catholic