Category Archives: Euthanasia

Updated August 10, 2017 15:41:13

WA Parliament has set the stage for a renewed debate on legalising euthanasia, but the push to allow medically-assisted death still faces plenty of hurdles to eventuate.

Parliament has agreed to set up a committee to look at the matter and a vote on whether to legalise euthanasia could come as soon as next year.

Here is what you need to know about the euthanasia debate and what happens from here.

Officially, the Legislative Assembly has voted to establish the 'Joint Select Committee on End of Life Choices'.

The motion set up by Morley MP Amber-Jade Sanderson will report on the "need for laws in Western Australia to allow citizens to make informed decisions regarding their own end of life choices".

In practice, that means the committee will hold a series of hearings over the coming months to investigate proposed legislative changes and review the laws in other jurisdictions.

If it were to recommend changes to euthanasia laws, it would also need to suggest a scope for laws - in other words, who would be allowed to end their life and under what circumstances.

The committee will then be due to report back within a year.

If Premier Mark McGowan gets his way, that committee's work will lead to a vote on euthanasia legislation as early as next year.

It is Mr McGowan's hope that a bill comes out of the committee's work, with every MP in Parliament to be given a free vote.

But even if that progresses as advocates plan, and a bill is voted upon by Parliament in 2018, it could still be some time until euthanasia becomes legal in WA.

The model currently being considered by Victoria would not allow people to seek a medically assisted death until 2019 and it is possible any WA change would also be somewhat delayed.

Mr McGowan supports voluntary euthanasia for those with terminal illnesses, but will give Labor MPs a conscience vote on the matter and the party has been split on the matter in the past.

Both the Liberals and Nationals will give their MPs a conscience vote, while One Nation is also expected to leave the choice up to its three Upper House members.

Within both of the major parties, there are a mix of people either firmly for or against legalising euthanasia.

The Greens are firmly supportive of euthanasia though, stating on their website that those with terminal illnesses should have the choice of a "dignified, pain-free death".

Because the vast majority of MPs are not bound to a party position, it is unlikely to become clear for a long time whether any bill would make it through Parliament.

Yes, in fact the debate has regularly come up in Parliament over the last two decades.

In 2010, a bill put forward by Greens MP Robin Chapple was defeated 11-24 in the Upper House and never made it to the Legislative Assembly.

Both the major parties allowed their MPs a conscience vote on the matter for that 2010 debate.

But not a single Liberal MP supported the measure after then-Premier Colin Barnett labelled it "sanctioned killing" while five out of 11 Labor MPs also voted against it.

Private members bills introduced in 1997, 1998, 2000 and 2002 also made little progress.

Euthanasia was briefly legal in the Northern Territory but is now illegal in all Australian jurisdictions.

Recent efforts to legalise it in Tasmania and South Australia were defeated, but Victoria is considering allowing those with advanced and incurable medical conditions to seek a medically assisted death from 2019.

Some US states have legalised euthanasia, including California - where those with a terminal illness and aged over 18 can request life-ending medication.

Euthanasia or assisted suicide are also legal in a handful of European countries, Canada and Japan.

Topics: euthanasia, state-parliament, wa

First posted August 10, 2017 13:17:10

Go here to see the original:

Legalising euthanasia: What you need to know after parliamentary inquiry announced - ABC Online

Posted August 09, 2017 19:35:29

West Australian politicians could vote as early as next year on whether to legalise voluntary euthanasia for people with terminal illnesses, with the Premier Mark McGowan among those pushing for change.

The Lower House of Parliament is set to vote tomorrow to establish a committee to examine 'end of life' choices, with a report then due to be released mid next year.

Mr McGowan said he hoped legislation would be brought before Parliament in 2018, meaning a vote to decide whether euthanasia is legalised could come late next year.

But the likelihood of any bill to legalise voluntary euthanasia passing Parliament is unclear, with Labor, the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation all giving their members a conscience vote on the issue.

The committee was proposed by Labor's Morley MP Amber-Jade Sanderson, who said she believed there was strong public support for legalising euthanasia.

"Politicians and parliaments have been deeply reluctant to examine this issue further," Ms Sanderson told Parliament.

"It is a hard issue, it is a personal issue, about ethical dilemmas, grief and loss."

Mr McGowan said he wanted a bi-partisan approach to the development of any legislation.

"I'd like legislation to come in next year, put together by this committee, that everyone can have their own free vote on," the Premier said.

"I am not going to try to ram my views down peoples throats, but I do think that its time has come."

Several bills to legalise euthanasia have been brought to State Parliament in the past, but the most recent to come to a vote was comfortably defeated.

The creation of a committee had expected to be a formality today, but debate became bogged down for hours over procedural and minor wording matters delaying its passage.

For nearly an hour, Liberal MPs argued Labor had moved the motion to establish the committee at an inappropriate time.

Some opponents of legalising euthanasia expressed confidence that any bill to legalise voluntary euthanasia would be defeated in Parliament.

"The risks are too great and the consequences are final," Liberal MP Nick Goiran said.

Anti-euthanasia advocate Father Joe Parkinson warned that, even if assisted dying was legalised solely for people with terminal illnesses, that would be expanded in the future to other groups.

"No matter how tightly constrained that legislation is, euthanasia always expands out to other categories," he said.

"It begins with people in pain, it goes on to people who are elderly and people who are suffering with disability."

Topics: euthanasia, state-parliament, wa

View post:

Legal euthanasia debate to ramp up as parliamentary committee convenes - ABC Online

STACEY KIRK

Last updated16:26, August 10 2017

Four MPs have tried to get Parliament to legalise voluntary euthanasia.

A bill that would legalise euthanasia under strict controls,has been given a legal stamp of approval that if passed, it would not infringe on basic human rights to life.

It's been welcomed by the bill's holder, ACT leader David Seymour, who said it debunked the "myths" put forward by critics that the bill was poorly drafted.

The report is a standard assessment by Attorney-General Chris Finlayson, which test all proposed legislation against the Bill of Rights Act.

KEVIN STENT/STUFF

ACT leader and Epsom MP David Seymour says the Attorney General's report shuts down any argument that his euthanasia bill does not contain the necessary safeguards to protect the vulnerable.

Finlayson found the bill was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights' section pertaining to age - in a purely legal sense, the age restriction of 18 on Seymour's bill was discriminatory under the Act.

READ MORE: *Parliamentary inquiry into record euthanasia submissions: 'note' response *Euthanasia: How is it done, and what's it like putting down something you've vowed to care for? *Helen Kelly:'Why can't I have the option of assisted dying?' *MPs to vote on euthanasia after bill places the issue back in front of Parliament

But it was fully consistent with the rights not to be deprived of life, freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.

Seymour said he expected the report to provide assurance to MPs on the fence about supporting his bill, when it's expected to come before the house for its first reading in the next parliamentary term.

"Opponents will now need to explain why they would not allow dying people, in extreme suffering, to have a choice about how and when they die - rather than hiding behind those straw men," he said.

"I am particularly pleased that the report finds my bill consistent with the right not to be deprived of life.

NZN VIDEO

Parliament to debate a bill that would allow voluntary euthanasia.

"The report says that the eligibility criteria are narrow enough, and the safeguards strict enough, that the bill will not cause wrongful deaths, and that assisted dying will be available only to the group the bill intends incurably or terminally ill, and in unbearable suffering."

Finlayson's report only related to legal questions of Seymour's bill. It did not assess it against any moral, ethical, religious or clinical views.

Seymour said that on the question of the right not to be deprived of life, his bill was consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.

"This differs from the previous bill on assisted dying, in 2003. That bill was found to be inconsistent with the right not to be deprived of life. It didn't have all of the same safeguards that my bill contains."

Recently, a separateParliamentary investigation into euthanasia detailed an overwhelmingly negative response by New Zealanders who took the time to submit to Parliament's Health Select Committee.

In a report to Parliament, generated from that investigation, MPs laid out the issues that sparked concern from more than 21,000 submissions. It also acknowledged a number of scientific polls that showed up to 75 per cent of New Zealanders were in favour of euthanasia.

-Stuff

Read more:

Euthanasia bill consistent with right to life, conscience and freedom ... - Stuff.co.nz

Pope Francis has given a Belgian religious order until the end of August to stop offering euthanasia to psychiatric patients.

Brother Rene Stockman, superior general of the order, told Catholic News Service the pope gave his personal approval to a Vatican demand that the Brothers of Charity, which runs 15 centers for psychiatric patients across Belgium, must reverse its policy by the end of August.

Brothers who serve on the board of the Brothers of Charity Group, the organization that runs the centers, also must each sign a joint letter to their superior general declaring that they fully support the vision of the magisterium of the Catholic Church, which has always confirmed that human life must be respected and protected in absolute terms, from the moment of conception till its natural end.

Brothers who refuse to sign will face sanctions under canon law, while the group can expect to face legal action and even expulsion from the church if it fails to change its policy.

The group, he added, must no longer consider euthanasia as a solution to human suffering under any circumstances.

The order, issued at the beginning of August, follows repeated requests for the group to drop its new policy of permitting doctors to perform euthanasia on non-terminal mentally ill patients on its premises.

It also follows a joint investigation by the Vaticans congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith and for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.

Stockman, who had opposed the groups euthanasia policy, told Catholic News Service the ultimatum was devised by the two congregations and has the support of the pope.

The Holy Father was formally informed about it and was also informed about the steps to be taken, he said in an Aug. 8 email.

The ultimatum, he said, meant the groups policies must be underpinned by a belief that respect for human life is absolute.

Stockman told CNS that if the group refused to bow to the ultimatum then we will take juridical steps in order to force them to amend the text (of the new policy) and, if that is not possible, then we have to start the procedure to exclude the hospitals from the Brothers of Charity family and take away their Catholic identity.

He said if any of the brothers refused to sign the letter upholding Catholic teaching against euthanasia, then also we will start the correct procedure foreseen in canon law.

The Belgian bishops and the nuncio to Belgium have been informed about the ultimatum, he added.

Stockman, a psychiatric care specialist, had turned to the Vatican in the spring after the Brothers of Charity group rejected a formal request from him to reverse the new policy.

The group also snubbed the Belgian bishops by formally implementing its euthanasia policy in June, just weeks after the bishops declared they would not accept euthanasia in Catholic institutions.

The group has also ignored a statement of church teaching forbidding euthanasia. The statement, written and signed by Cardinal Gerhard Muller, former head of the doctrinal congregation, was sent to the Brothers of Charity Group members. A copy of the document has been obtained byCatholic News Service.

The Brothers of Charity was founded in 1807 in Ghent, Belgium, by Father Peter Joseph Triest, whose cause for beatification was opened in 2001. Their charism is to serve the elderly and the mentally ill.

Today, the group is considered the most important provider of mental health care services in the Flanders region of Belgium, where they serve 5,000 patients a year.

About 12 psychiatric patients in the care of the Brothers of Charity are believed to have asked for euthanasia over the past year, with two transferred elsewhere to receive the injections to end their lives.

The group first announced its euthanasia policy in March, saying it wished to harmonize the practices of the centers with the Belgian law on euthanasia passed in 2003, the year after the Netherlands became the first country to permit the practice since Nazi Germany.

Technically, euthanasia in Belgium remains an offense, with the law protecting doctors from prosecution only if they abide by specific criteria, but increasingly lethal injections are given to the disabled and mentally ill. Since 2014 emancipated children have also qualified for euthanasia.

The groups change in policy came about a year after a private Catholic rest home in Diest, Belgium, was fined $6,600 for refusing the euthanasia of a 74-year-old woman suffering from lung cancer.

Catholic News Service has approached the Brothers of Charity Group for a comment.

Visit link:

Pope tells Belgian Brothers of Charity no more euthanasia for patients - Crux: Covering all things Catholic

In my very first anti-euthanasia column, published by Newsweek in 1993, I worried that once medicalized killing became accepted, it would soon be joined by organ harvesting as a plum to society.

Alarmist! I was called. Slippery slope arguer! It will never happen, I was assured.

Until it did.

Now in both Netherlands and Belgium, mentally ill and disabled patients are voluntarily euthanized and their organs harvested after being killed. Canada is discussing joining the infamous duo.

I have waited for the organ transplant community to rise up and reject conjoining killing and organ donation.It has been a wait mostly in vain.

Indeed, a letter in the current Journal of the American Medical Association merely warns against haste in widely instituting such a policy due to safety concerns:

I urge caution before this practice is widely accepted. First, only short-term functional outcomes immediately after transplantation and at 6 months are available.Second, warm ischemia, an inevitable consequence of organ donation after cardiac death, results in greater risk for transplanted organs

There is a need to study long-term outcomes of transplanted organs resulting from euthanasia so that truly informed consent can be obtained.

How starkly utilitarian can you get?

If all that matters is consentthe clear implication of this letterwhy would donorshave to be suffering sufficiently to qualify for euthanasia?

Indeed, why not let healthy peoplewho simply wantto die and believeotherswho want to livehave a greater claim on theirlivers and hearts volunteer to be killed and harvested?

The authors of the original article make in an equallybloodless, technocratic reply:

Euthanasia is performed according to local protocol by injection of a drug to induce coma, followed by a muscle relaxant. After circulatory arrest, a waiting time of 5 minutes is respected before the patient is transferred to the operating room for organ removal.

Compared with other donations after cardiac death, the process of dying is short(often less than10-15 minutes), and death is not preceded by medical deterioration in the intensive care unit.

Euthanasia donors are, on average, younger than other cardiac death donors.Better transplant results may therefore occur in organ donation after euthanasia compared with donation after other causes of cardiac death, but additional studies are required.

Where are we as a society that killing and harvesting are respectfully discussed in one of the worlds most respected medical journalsand no one brings up crucial issues of right and wrong?

As just one quick example:What could be more dangerous than lettingdespairing people believe that their deaths could have greater value than their lives? Becoming a donor could be the final factor that induces them to opt for euthanasia or assisted suicide.

For for that matter, how dangerous would it beif society ever cameto accept that the hastened deathsof the despairingcould offer a plum?

Euthanasia corrupts everything it touchesincluding, it would seem, the ethics of organ transplant medicine.

More here:

Is Euthanasia Corrupting Transplant Medical Ethics? | National ... - National Review

9 Aug 2017, 11 a.m.

Does the legalisation of something once illegal, turn that which was once wrong, now suddenly right?

IN SHARINGour musings on the current euthanasia debate, although we can all try and leave our beliefs out of the debate, this is impossible. To believe or not believe in life after death and/or to believe or not believe in God are beliefs, and may well influence our views on euthanasia.

The majority rule principle as an authority for deciding the rightness or wrongness of any moral issue, including euthanasia, is a dangerous yardstick. Several moral practices considered immoral by most Australians in 1917, are now considered moral by most Australians in 2017. Does what was wrong become right (or vice versa) because the majority say so? If the vote is close, is that what makes the moral issue grey?

Does the legalisation of something once illegal, turn that which was once wrong, now suddenly right? If morality equalled what is legal then slavery was not wrong in the United States for most of 19th Century, and for most of 20th Century slavery was good and right in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and part of West Africa.

So what would a priest know about euthanasia? Well, as a priest I have been called by the family of a loved one dying, or by the dying themselves many times over these past sixteen years to anoint the dying and spend time with them and their families and it is based on these experiences that I can express my strong opposition to legalising euthanasia.

Given the current national debate and the blurring of boundaries, its as important to state what is euthanasia and what is not euthanasia.

Euthanasia is not turning off machines. Euthanasia is not the discontinuing of excessive and unreasonable effort to keep the patient alive. Euthanasia is not increasing the dosage of pain relief for the purpose of pain relief, even though this increase may hasten the death of the patient.

Euthanasia is lethal injections.

Is euthanasia mercy killing? Yes, but mercy for the living, not the dying; its those who live interstate and want to get back home or those who have important projects at work that euthanasia grants mercy to, not their loved one who is dying for the last time ever. For those who claim the one dying didnt want to be a burden, its sad that any family would allow a loved one to believe they ever were a burden; but what were the dying to think in some cases when theyre grieving family were often either on their phone to work or not there?

Some incredible family reconciliations happen while they wait for the inevitable between long-time fighting family members; reconciliations euthanasia would rob our society of. Who can deny the dying wish of a loved one? The dying can bring more reconciliation to a family in days than we living can in years. As for dying with dignity theres not much more dignified in this world than making peace in your family.

Its fitting the euthanasia debate will end with a conscience vote as the greatest casualty in legalising euthanasia may well be societys conscience.

If already so many blame themselves for the death of a loved one, even for no reason, how much more will sensitive and grieving consciences blame themselves, in years to come, that they were responsible for encouraging a difficult decision, at a very traumatic time, that leaves permanent consequences?

Perhaps the unforeseen legacy of euthanasia will not be the killing of the dying, but the massive increase of pain for those who are left living.

See the original post here:

Father Brendan's Thursday Thoughts | OPINION, August 10, 2017 - The Border Mail

8 Aug 2017, 4:17 p.m.

Minto's Ken Attenborough felt powerless to help his dying mother and became a strong advocate for legalising voluntary euthanasia.

Minto's Ken Attenborough watched his mother die and is watching his father slowly die. Mr Attenborough felt powerless to help and became a strong advocate for legalising voluntary euthanasia. Picture: Simon Bennett

Related content:

Ken Attenborough watched his mother die in agony and wants to spare other familiesthat pain.

He is among Macarthurs most vocaladvocates for the legalisation ofvoluntary euthanasia.

The trauma of the appalling end for my wonderful mother and more importantly my failure to prevent a final series of humiliations and suffering has slowly eaten away at me ever since, Mr Attenborough said.

A cross-party Private Members Bill is expected to be introduced to State Parliament within months.

Terminally ill NSW residents over the age of 25 would have the legal right to end their own lives with medical assistance under thedraft legislation.

To qualify, the patient would need to meet strict conditions including that they are expected to die within 12 months and are of sound mind, and the decision must be signed off by two medical practitioners.

Mr Attenborough said his advocacy was born from a feeling of powerless to ease his mothers pain after shetold him that she no longer wanted to endure her current existenceand wanted to die.

Years later his father was struck down with a stomach illness and Mr Attenborough found himself in the same position his father told him he wanted to die.

His only desirewas to make sure that we would be okaybefore he moved on to whatever lies beyond our deaths, Mr Attenborough said. My father had fervently hopedthe surgery to install a feeding tube would take his life.Much to his disappointment it did not.

He was making a choice that was notbased on depression or anxiety or a lack of value in the dignity of life, but on the simple realisation that his time had come.

Mr Attenborough said he found himself in a difficult position where hecontemplated helping his father end his life because he could notbear to see him in pain.

He said he knew people in a similar position to him desperate people who were forced to do desperate things.

That is why Mr Attenborough is an advocate and why he is calling on others to tell their local MPs that theysupport the legalisation.

Sadly, I was one of those many thousands of people who passively supported voluntary euthanasia, he said. I was not spurred into action untiltragedy was right on my door step.

I am tired, I am hurting and I do not see a cure for the guilt that has plagued me now at having failed both my mother and my father in their time of greatest need.

I am haunted by a question that I think I shall never know the answer to.

How can anyone assume they know how much someone else can endure, or how much someone else should suffer before they are set free?

Please dont wait until you or someone you love needs the mercy of our society to end their suffering. For you will find none, and it is a heavy cross to bear.

See the original post:

Euthanasia advocate wants suffering eased - Wollondilly Advertiser

By Benjamin NunnallyTimes Staff Writer

More than 1,400 animals arrived at animal shelters in Etowah County through June and July, raising this question: Why dont more people spay and neuter their pets?

The problem is much larger than a little humane society trying to spay and neuter pets, said Christi Brown, director of the Humane Society Pet Rescue and Adoption Center, a shelter that serves Gadsden and Attalla.

The Humane Society estimates between six million and eight million animals come into shelters in the United States every year. About half that many, 2.7 million, are euthanized each year.

Etowah County Animal Shelter Director Jamie Thompson said leaving animals unaltered not spayed or neutered is a direct cause of that population boom.

People dont realize that when youve got a dog outside and the neighbor has a female dog in heat, that male dog is going to do his best to jump the fence and get to that female dog, said Thompson.

Brown said that while her shelter has hosted a program for a year that allows families to spay and neuter their pets at reduced cost, the effort has barely made a dent in the animal overpopulation problem. The reluctance to take pets in for the procedures, she said, is at least in part caused by myths surrounding spaying and neutering.

The following items address a few of those concerns:

The operation is safe

Jolie Entrekin, a licensed veterinary technician with Gadsden Animal Clinic, said spaying and neutering is a safe procedure. Theres always a risk with anesthesia, but its just about your only risk, she said. Owners of animals with major health concerns like a bad heart or seizures would want to discuss the operation with their vet first.

Long-term health benefits tend to outweigh the risks

A study by the University of California in 2013 found that spayed or neutered Golden Retrievers tended to experience higher rates of hip dysplasia and other disease risks than non-altered animals. Though particular breeds do have some particulars about when they should be treated, according to Entrekin, the health benefits over time outweigh breed-specific risks. Instances of breast cancer are reduced for female dogs, and pyometra a uterine infection that affects about one in four dogs is eliminated completely.

Dont wait for the first litter

Some pet owners believe their female animals should give birth at least once before spaying, for better health. The American Veterinary Medical Association says even waiting for the first heat cycle may not be best, let alone waiting for a litter of new animals. Theres also the issue of those new puppies or kittens to deal with, including feeding, housing and finding a home, if they cant stay with their mother.

Theres no too early in most cases

Spaying and neutering will change the hormonal balance of animals, so concerns about their development are natural, but veterinarians will be able to tell pet owners when the procedure is safe for their animals breed, sex, age, weight and other factors. Entrekin said pediatric spay and neuters are safe, with proper guidance from the experts.

Spaying and neutering dont change pet personalities

Some behaviors like aggressiveness, roaming and wandering, mounting and territory-marking are usually reduced after the operation, but personalities dont change. According to the Humane Society, animals learn more about how to act from their environment, and desirable traits, like protectiveness, are instinctive, and not gained from hormones.

It costs less than you think

Entrekin said the procedure runs between $70 and $200, depending on the clinic or shelter, with her clinic running toward the lower end of that scale in an effort to help the overpopulation issue. Its basically the only cure for euthanasia, she said. Organizations like Alabama Spay/Neuter offer help finding lower-cost procedures and finding financial aid. Visit alspay.org for more information.

Read the original here:

'The only cure for euthanasia': pet spay and neuter facts - Gadsden Times

Euthanasia advocates in Canada are pushing for higher pay for doctors who euthanize their patients.

Macleans Magazine published an article a few weeks ago making the case for higher pay for euthanasia doctors.

Euthanasia now is legal just across the border in Canada. At least 1,324 patients have been killed legally by euthanasia in less than a year after the country legalized the killing.

Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker commented on the article this week: Once the state gets in the business of killing off its citizens via euthanasia, the brutal logic of economics works its way through the system. In Canada, which legalized euthanasia just over a year ago, one of the most important forums for political discussion,Macleans Magazine, published an article arguing that doctors ought to be paid a premium forkilling offeuthanizing terminal patients.

The magazine profiled British Columbia doctor and euthanasia activist Tanja Daws, who says she is losing money by euthanizing her patients.

According to the report:

All in, a MAID [euthanasia] provider can claim a maximum of $440 [in British Columbia, and $292.20 in Nova Scotia]. That would be a hefty paycheque for a couple hours work if that was indeed all the time it took to assess a patient and administer the fatal dose. In reality, it takes much longer.

SUPPORT PRO-LIFE NEWS! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation

Its not sustainable, says Daws, who describes herself as a hard-core, passionate-to-the-bone assisted-dying advocate. Last week alone, she turned down three patients who wanted the service because she couldnt afford to do it. Its not for lack of wanting, she says, but its financial suicide.

Later, the article continued:

According to the Canadian Medical Association, assisted dying could cut health care costs by at least $34.7 million and up to $138.8 million a year in Canada. Both [fellow euthanasia doctor Stefanie] Green and Daws now cant help but wonder whether the decision to set fees so low was a politically or ethically motivated one. I would hate to think that was the intention, adds Shanaaz Gokool, CEO of Dying with Dignity, an end-of-life rights organization. But ultimately it doesnt matter, she adds. Intentionally or not, the outcome is the same: youre putting up barriers to access, and now that [policy-makers] know, its their responsibility to make changes ASAP. If they dont, then they are intentionally obstructing access with that decisions.

The legalized killing of human beings, whether through abortion or euthanasia, often is closely connected to money. Even in the United States where doctor-prescribed suicide is legal in several states, patients and doctors are seeing how financial pressures influence the taking of human lives.

Dr. Brian Callister, a physician and professor at the University of Nevada Medical School, said insurance companies denied two of his patients life-saving medical treatment coverage and offered to pay for them to commit suicide instead. The patients lived in California and Oregon where doctor-prescribed suicide is legal.

Quite frankly, I was stunned, Callister said. Its a lot cheaper to grab a couple drugs, kill you, than it is to provide you life-sustaining therapy. Its as simple as that.

There are other confirmed stories of patients being denied medical insurance coverage and offered drugs to kill themselves instead.

Stephanie Packer, a young, terminally ill mother of four, is one of them. The California mother said her state Medicare plan initially refused to pay for her medical treatment but offered to pay for assisted suicide drugs instead.

In separate incidents, Oregon cancer patients Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup also were denied treatment in their state health insurance plans and offered doctor-prescribed suicide instead.

Read more from the original source:

Canada May Pay Doctors More to Euthanize Their Patients - LifeNews.com

The 'right to die' soon becomes a duty to die

The news from the Netherlands, as this magazine reports, is not encouraging. Almost one in twenty deaths are now the result of euthanasia, and a considerable proportion of those put to death are not terminally ill, but suffering from old age alone. As one commentator put it, of these old people who supposedly elect to die: These are old people who may have health problems, but none of them are life-threatening. Theyre old, they cant get around, their friends are dead and their children dont visit anymore. This kind of trend cries out for a discussion. Do we think their lives are still worthwhile?

That indeed is a good question. In Holland, is human life still of value? Given the upward trend in euthanasia statistics, is Holland a good place in which to grow old or to grow ill? And are these old people really choosing to die freely and deliberately, or are they under pressure, spoken or unspoken, to do so?

At this point, a Catholic will surely be tempted to point out the essential flaw in the original legislation that made euthanasia legal in Holland back in 2002. Firstly, hard cases make bad law; and secondly, any opening of the door to voluntary euthanasia represents the thin end of the wedge, for what is extraordinary has a habit of becoming usual, and what is voluntary has the tendency to become less so, given the tyranny of public opinion. Countries that have not legalised euthanasia (or assisted death, or whatever you want to call it) should find the Dutch experience a warning of what to expect if they do. In countries where the Church is still doing its best to oppose euthanasia, Catholics should take heart, realising the importance of the struggle, and not allow themselves to be discouraged. The example of Holland should strike fear into our hearts of a future that awaits us if we do not resist.

One group that will keep quiet about the news from Holland are of course all those who wish to advance the cause of euthanasia in other countries, people such as Lady Warnock. For the truth is that no rational human being would choose to live in a society where euthanasia is commonplace. For as the right to die becomes a duty to die, the shadow of fear falls over all life. One wonders how the elderly population of Holland feels about this and whether any of them have been asked about the current situation. Perhaps in time, some will come to rebel against it. One hopes so, for the sake of humanity.

See the rest here:

The Netherlands shows us the full horror of 'assisted dying' - Catholic Herald Online (blog)