Category Archives: Euthanasia

Joe Biden speaks at the Iowa Federation of Labor Convention in Altoona, Iowa, August 21, 2019.(Gage Skidmore)

Father Ryan Hilderbrand of Huntingburg, Ind., has a useful thread explaining why Joe Biden was barred from receiving the Eucharist at a South Carolina church on Sunday:

This is formally explicated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which states at Can. 915:

Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication orinterdict has been imposed ordeclared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest gravesin, are not to beadmittedtoholycommunion.

Not all of the clergy agreed with Fr. Hilderbrand, however. Jesuit Father James Martin tweeted:

Surely Fr. Martin does not mean to suggest that support for the death penalty for heinous criminals a practice the Catholic Church has supported (and enacted!) in various moments in its history is comparable to supporting the slaughter of unborn children. Neither, one imagines, could he possibly be suggesting that excessive use of air conditioning, or failing to recycle plastic goods, as outlined in Pope Franciss environmental encyclical Laudato Si, are acts of similar moral gravity as a politician publicly supporting abortion rights.

Surely thats not what he means. Right?

Fr. Martin would do well to consider the words of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Go here to see the original:

Should Biden Have Been Denied the Eucharist? - National Review

Secretary for Administration and Justice Sonia Chan (center)

The Municipal Affairs Bureau (IAM) will make euthanizing animals its last resort used to prevent animal disease, the bureaus representatives remarked during yesterdays Legislative Assembly (AL) plenary session.

Secretary for Administration and Justice Sonia Chan and the IAMs representatives presented the veterinary disease prevention bill at the AL yesterday. The bill, which was passed in general terms, suggested that the IAM authorize the right to euthanize animals when necessary.

Lawmakers, including Agnes Lam and Sulu Sou, voiced their concerns about euthanasia. The lawmakers mainly asked about the governments measures in strictly implementing the law when animals must be euthanized. Compensating concerned parties after euthanasia was also proposed by lawmaker Leong Sun Iok.

Sulu Sou proposed the government establish laws to regulate vet clinics and vets. Other lawmakers wondered whether the government has already had discussions with animal protection groups and whether or not the governments proposal is supported by these groups.

Replying to the lawmakers questions, Sonia Chan said that the local government is drafting a law bill on vet clinics. She acknowledged the importance of managing and accrediting the sector.

Chan noted that vet clinics must report to the IAM when they record an animal disease case. Animal owners are also obliged to make sure their sick animals receive medical treatment.

Generally speaking, animals received by the IAM will first be sent for isolated observation. During the observation period, the IAM will closely monitor the animals health and other conditions. The IAM will also provide medical treatment to the animals. Euthanasia will be the IAMs last option.

Regarding compensation to interested parties in the animal business, IAM President Jos Tavares said that the bureau provides subsidies to the parties instead of compensation, which means that the money given, while representing a financial loss, is not governmental compensation but a form of help given to the concerned parties.

He also explained that the IAM has detected sick animals in the past, and that some were euthanized, though not killed in a brutal manner.

Lawmaker Mak Soi Kun then indicated that he wishes the government to handle the stray animal problem in Coloane. In his opinion, Coloane has an excessive number of stray animals, in particular stray dogs, which pose a danger to the public.

Many residents have told me that there are increasingly more stray dogs, said Mak.

Replying to Maks comment, the IAM representative said that when stray dogs do not carry diseases, they are passed to local communities for re-homing.

In recent years, on average, the IAM only registered a single-digit number of illegally imported animals.

Besides the animal disease prevention bill, the amendment of the stamp tax bill was generally passed at the Legislative Assembly (AL) yesterday as well. The bill proposed a four- to 10-fold penalty for tax evasion and tax avoidance.

Secretary for Economy and Finance Lionel Leong explained that, in some cases, buildings consisting of small shops engaged in tax evasion and tax avoidance behaviors that caused unfairness to small shops operating inside the buildings premises.

Currently, the penalty for tax evasion and tax avoidance for stamp tax is between 100 patacas and 10,000 patacas, respectively. The government holds that the current amount is rather small compared to penalties related to other taxes, such as the tourism tax.

The amendment mainly proposed simplifying tax payment procedures and increasing the aforementioned penalty.

See the article here:

Legislative Assembly | Euthanizing animals to be last resort to prevent disease spread - Macau Daily Times

Wellington On Wednesday, New Zealand law makers narrowly backed a plan to hold a referendum on legalising euthanasia alongside next years general election.

The proposal to put the issue to a public vote passed 63-57 during a heated, late-night debate in parliament.

It means when Kiwis go to the polls late in 2020 they will not only be voting for their preferred government but also on two referendums: one on legalising euthanasia, and the other on allowing recreational marijuana (cannabis) use.

While a final vote to confirm a referendum on the End of Life Choice Bill will be held in November, it is considered a formality after the plan won crucial backing from the New Zealand First (NZF) Party.

This is an emotive topic. Its a divisive topic ... but we should have the courage to allow the voting public to participate in this conversation, NZFs Jenny Marcroft told parliament.NZF had threatened to pull support for the bill if the referendum proposal was rejected and parliament tried to simply pass the legislation.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has publicly stated her support for euthanasia reform and reluctantly voted for the referendum, saying earlier this week that it was the only way of advancing the legislation.

Members of Arderns centre-left Labour Party were given a conscience vote on the issue, as were MPs largest party, the conservative Nationals.

National law maker Harete Hipango described the euthanasia legislation as abhorrent, repugnant and also dangerous.

This is a kill bill. My focus and my intention is that I seek to kill this bill because of the repugnancy of what it intends to do, he said.The state has a duty of care to protect our most vulnerable.

The law maker behind the bill, libertarian David Seymour, said the proposal had safeguards to protect the vulnerable.

This is a bill only for people who have a terminal illness as diagnosed by two doctors, he said.It is for people who are, sadly, at the end of their lives, and it is a choice ... only the person whose life it is can make the choice.

AFP

Go here to read the rest:

New Zealand to add euthanasia vote to 2020s election - Business Day

Euthanasia is the practice of killing or permitting the death of sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way out of an act of mercy.

According to WHO, euthanasia also referred to as mercy killing, is a controversial topic as it raises the following agonizing moral dilemmas:

At the heart of these arguments are different ideologies about the meaning and value of human existence.

According to Medical News Today, in the U.S. and other countries, euthanasia has been a topic of debate since the early 1800s.

The first anti-euthanasia law in the U.S. was passed in New York state in 1828.

Euthanasia can be done in three ways: voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary.

Voluntary euthanasia means that the act is performed with consent where the patient is given some documents to sign.

It is currently legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and the states of Oregon and Washington in the U.S.

However, non-voluntary euthanasia is conducted on a person who is unable to consent due to their current health condition.

In this scenario the decision is made by another person on behalf of the patient, based on their quality of life and suffering.

Involuntary euthanasia is when euthanasia is performed on a person who would be able to provide informed consent, but does not, either because they do not want to die, or because they were not asked. It is often termed as murder as it is usually against the patients will.

Video Of The Day: | WESTLANDS UNDERWORLD | Crooks, govt officials named in plot to grab mans property

Continued here:

What is... - Citizen TV

We have a government who likes referendums and it looks like next year we'll have two of them.

Cannabis and euthanasia.

There are those who say it's only democratic that the public get to have their say and decide, there are others who argue that politicians get paid the big bucks to make the hard decisions, why should we have to?

I think it's fair to let the public have their say, but it does open up the issue as to how informed the public is when it does.

Complex and multifaceted issues being reduced to a simple yes or no tick in a box, feels a bit cheap.

There is the risk of referendums being just for the campaigners of each side of the issues, a concern that many people won't bother to vote.

So if you don't vote you can't complain right? Yes we get that, but is it still an accurate reflection of what the population thinks?

And do we get enough time to digest all the issues around simple yes or no questions?

Do we truly understand what we're voting for?

How much are we swayed by the last person we spoke to or what our neighbour thinks?

What sort of mindset are we in when we cast that vote?

Would we have voted differently if we had more time or more experience?

Then there's the expectation factor, these issues are polled for months out from any vote, so there's some insight into the public appetite for or against something.

Euthanasia for example, has been polled for years, for about 20 years we've surveyed whether people support the right to die, and some form of assisted dying has consistently achieved an average of about 68 percent support.

In fact, a One News Colmar Brunton poll in July this year had about 72 percent support for assisted dying of some sort.

So the trend looks in favour, but does that make the outcome now a certainty?

Well who knows?

Public campaigns can shift sentiment, persuasive politicians can cause disquiet.

Nationals's Alfred Ngaro told the house yesterday a referendum would be an abdication of power by MP's and that it was irresponsible. That it was "unleashing a complex and difficult society-impacting decision onto the public."

Well yes that's the point isn't it?

So given that, the onus is on us to be ready for it.

See original here:

Kate Hawkesby: Cannabis and euthanasia are complicated issues to vote on - Newstalk ZB

ANALYSIS:The prime minister has said several times that she doesn't think there should be a referendum on euthanasia.

But she could well vote for one on Wednesday. Here's why.

Jacinda Ardern has supported the End of Life Choice Bill every step of the way, and voted with bill sponsor David Seymour on all of his varied amendments thus far all of which are aimed at getting it to pass.

TOM LEE/STUFF

Most Labour MPs support euthanasia. But they could well oppose a referendum on the topic.

Now, with the referendum vote looming under which the law would be dependent on the public endorsing it Ardern has left open the option of voting fora referendumwhich she has previously be wary of, if that's what is needed for the bill to pass.

Ardern is of course only one vote of 120. Because euthanasia is a conscience matter for Labour and National, theleaders' votes technically don't count anymore than the lowliest of backbenchers'.

But her vote will likely be influential on other MPs on the fence, which could be crucial. It's much easier to make a hard decision when you know your leader has made the exact same call. Several other Labour MPs could go all the way from yes to no without much trouble.

Seymour desperately needs to pass the referendum amendment on Wednesday to pass the bill itself in a few weeks' time. This is because of a deal he made with NZ First early in the process: if he got a referendum included, all nine NZ First MPs would stay onboard through all three readings.

If the referendum amendment fails, it's not clear thateveryNZ First MP would vote againstthe bill (opinions clearly differ within the party), but most would.

Given Seymour won the second reading with 70 votes to 50, he can technically afford to lose nine votes, as this would put him right on the magical 61 number. But itwould mean he couldn't lose a single other MP from the coalition he put together for first and second reading, which seems very unlikely after all, he lost nine MPs between first and second readings, while only picking up three.

So Ardern is likely to know how important it is that a referendum passes for the bill itself to have a good chance of becoming law. But even as she supports that law change, she might not support it enough to back a referendum.

There wouldbe several reasons for this.

On a philosophicallevel,many MPs think referendums are a bad way to deal with knotty issues such as euthanasia, and should be saved for issues of constitutional importance.

But there is also a lot of political risk for Labour in a euthanasia referendum running alongside the 2020 general election, as it will give social conservativesa potent campaign issue.

Conservative lobby groups such asFamily First already have plenty to do campaigning against abortion law reform and the cannabis referendum pinned to go with the 2020 election. Add in a referendum on euthanasia and there would be quite a cocktail of policies to campaign and fundraise with.

TheGovernment would be coming for your babies, your grandma, and to give your kids legal weed.

That the euthanasia bill is not actually sponsored by Labour wouldn't really matter Ardern is in Government and is supportive of euthanasia, while Simon Bridges is not, so she would become much more deeply associated with the bill.

This is despite the fact that polls suggest a referendum is likely to win. While most of the country might appear tosupport euthanasia, the people who are against it aredeeplyagainst it. And plenty of those against it could well be Labour voters.

Ardern cares about euthanasia. But she might not quite care enough to lose an election over it.

* Comments on this story are now closed

Read more from the original source:

What Labour will worry about with a euthanasia referendum - Stuff.co.nz

National Party MP Paula Bennett and Labour's Chris Hipkins were united today in their unease at putting the End of Life Choice Bill to a public referendum.

Speaking this morning to TVNZ1's Breakfast programme, Ms Bennett said while she does support the bill, "it was a reluctant vote for the referendum, I have to say".

"Sometimes as politicians and MPs you're put in there to make some tough decisions," she said.

Mr Hipkins agreed, saying, "I'm not wild about the idea of it going to a referendum but pragmatically, to ensure the bill actually passes, I voted in favour.

"I do believe what we're doing now isn't right - it's inhumane - and I do think it's time to change the law in this area."

The pair also discussed their views on the other referendum on the table - whether or not to legalise cannabis for personal use.

Mr Hipkins said there would definitely be "passionate arguments on both sides".

Ms Bennett said she worried about whether having three important things to vote on would be "too cluttered" for some voters.

Watch the full interview above.

Read the original here:

Paula Bennett and Chris Hipkins say they were reluctant to put euthanasia bill to referendum - TVNZ

Expanding euthanasia

Boer, who teaches at the Protestant Theological University in Groningen, is concerned that the choices people are making are changing the way they view the process of dying.

There is a societal move to equate dignified dying and orchestrated dying. They think that the only dignified death is one that you have caused yourself or that your doctor has caused. That concerns me because killing a human being is, and should be, an exception.

We shouldnt pretend that killing a human being whose natural life is not ended is normal. That is certainly not the view of Dutch doctors they continue to stress that it is emotionally very burdensome to do euthanasia.

Two recent court rulings are offered by Boer as evidence that euthanasia laws, no matter how tightly crafted, will inevitably be loosened. In a landmark court case in the Netherlands, a doctor was charged with murder for her role in euthanising a woman with dementia who had requested to be euthanised if she needed to go into care. Despite a sedative being slipped into her coffee, the woman roused as the lethal drug was about to be administered and she was held down by her family as the doctor completed the procedure. Judges said the doctor acted lawfully as not carrying out the process would have undermined the patients wish.

Boer says the implications are far reaching. The court has said that if a patient has made an advance directive and the patient has severe dementia that her advance directive trumps her present expression [of what she wants to happen].

The patient fought back; the court has ruled it was okay to put a sedative in her coffee in order to try to prevent her realising what is going on. It brings a lot of trouble to doctor-patient relationships because we expect there will be pressure now, from relatives, on gerontologists and nursing-home physicians to euthanise people who are incompetent. It is likely to be appealed and it should go to the High Court.

Seymours bill is narrower than Dutch law and would allow euthanasia only for terminally ill people with less than six months to live. Although Boer says that is superior to Dutch law, he cautions it is hard to accurately predict life expectancy for the terminally ill.

More importantly, Boer contends the six-months-to-live criterion is arbitrary. Limiting assisted suicide and euthanasia to patients with half a year to live or less isnt that a grave injustice to patients with similar suffering, who say their lives are unbearable, but who have longer to live?

In Canada [where there has been euthanasia for three years], a Quebec court deemed the criterion of terminal illness to be unconstitutional. Two patients with chronic illnesses challenged the law and the court ruled it is unconstitutional to limit the law to the terminally ill.

Both the Dutch and Canadian verdicts illustrate that if you have a euthanasia law, it will expand. It is an absolute certainty that, if New Zealand accepts Mr Seymours bill, it is not a matter of if but when the first court cases will start in which chronically ill patients fight against the limiting [of the law] to the terminally ill.

Boer also points to a bill drafted by the D66, a coalition partner in the Netherlands Government. The partys Completed Life Act, if introduced and passed, would allow people over the age of 75 to access euthanasia regardless of their physical health. The reason why this is being brought forward is that this is a group of people who might suffer from meaninglessness, detachment and loneliness.

This law would send two signals: one would be positive we respect your autonomy but the second signal frightens me, that there are groups of people in society we can do without. And this comes as we in the Netherlands, and in your country, campaign to prevent suicide.

What does Boer hope to achieve by visiting New Zealand in the latter stages of debate on the End of Life Choice Bill? Is his message primarily that New Zealand is on a slippery slope, as he contends has happened in his homeland?

Im not so fond of the slippery slope, but you can see from the different countries that have legalised euthanasia that there is a systemic injustice in limiting it to terminal patients. People are bound to challenge this, but I dont call it a slippery slope because you end up being called a scaremonger, and Im not. I just want to be realistic and I think New Zealanders should make informed decisions.

Even if they end up in favour of euthanasia, it should not be because of a naive romanticism about how well it goes in the Netherlands.

This article was first published in the September 28, 2019 issue of the New Zealand Listener.

The rest is here:

The Dutch ethics professor who changed his mind on euthanasia - Noted

There is a startling statistic tucked away in Ontarios September quarter euthanasia statistics. A total of 519 people were euthanised from July 1 to September 30.

Nothing too surprising.

But of the total euthanised, it appears, from governments sketchy summary, 30 donated organs. In other words, somehow the euthanising doctor and the transplant surgeons coordinated their efforts so that these people could give their organs to others. The time period is unclear.

Presumably the donation was not the cause of death, as this is illegal under Canadas euthanasia legislation. But there is pressure from doctors to change this. A year ago two Ontario physicians and Robert Truog, a bioethicist from Harvard Medical School, published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine listing all the advantages of organ donor euthanasia.

It would be necessary to do away with the dead donor rule that a patient must be dead before donating. In Canada a euthanasia death must be caused by the administration of a substance, not by organ retrieval. The law would have to be amended to take account of this medical and ethical development.

This has been bitterly criticised, of course. Last month Dr E. Wesley Ely, of Vanderbilt University, published an opinion piece in the journal Intensive Care Medicine. He argued: When physicians are participating in a procedure designed to take a persons life, will patients feel 100% certain that their physician is firmly on the side of healing? What message does it send about the value of every human life when physicians endorse the exchange of one life for another? What effect has it already had on physicians complicit in such death-causing procedures?

Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge

Continued here:

Organ donation and euthanasia make a good team in Ontario - BioEdge

The latest husband-and-wife euthanasia in the Netherlands took place on July 4. Nic and Trees Elderhorst, both 91, died in their home town of Didam, surrounded by family members. Neither was terminally ill, but both were in failing health. Nic, the husband, had a stroke five years ago, and Trees, the wife, was declining into dementia.

The couple had made advance directives in 2012 but they needed the euthanasia before Trees became unable to give her informed consent.

The couple applied to the Levenseindekliniek, a clinic which handles euthanasia requests when other doctors refuse. They gave each other a big kiss and passed away confidently holding hands, one of their daughters told a local newspaper, the Gelderlander.

Couple euthanasia is relatively common in the Netherlands, although some requests are refused because one of the partners does not fulfil the criteria. According to the Gelderlander, there are a few cases a year statistically negligible, but socially significant and no longer surprising.

Read this article:

BioEdge: Dutch couple choose euthanasia together - BioEdge