Category Archives: Euthanasia

Apologists for euthanasia in the Netherlands often lie by omission. Rarely, for example, do they fully admit that the mentally ill are being killed. Nor do they discuss the conjoining of euthanasia with organ harvesting. Perhaps it a case of not seeing what they dont want to see.

A piece by Dutch journalist Hasna El Maroudi, reacting against a Wall Street Journal op/ed by a Dutch parliamentarianwarning that activists want to now extend authority for euthanasia to thehealthy elderly who believe they havea completed lifeis a classic case in point.

El Maroudi decries the use of killing to describe euthanasia. From, In the Netherlands, Doctors Care How You Live and Die, published in the Huffington Post.

Doctors dont kill their patients, they assist them with ending their lives. The difference between the two might not be clear to the dense, but is of great importance. If doctors would kill their patients, they would be punishable by law.

By framing euthanasia as killing, conservatives have long tried to block legislation, unsuccessfully. They fought the battle and lost. Now that the kill-frame has proven a failure, theyre going with something new, trying to turn back the hands of time by using fake news. Or as I like to say: constructed lies.

Well, no. The definition of killing is to cause death or to end lifewhich is accurate and descriptive of what happens when a doctor injects poison into a patients bloodstream. Indeed, it is homicideno different in outcomee.g. killingthanif the doctor shot the patient in the head.

Euthanasia apologists try to convince people that because most of those are killed in euthanasia have proffered at least some level of consent, it isnt really killing. Again false.

In the Netherlands, doctors put more than 400people to death each yearperhaps El Maroudi will accept that descriptive?who have not asked to die. It is called termination without request or consent in the Dutch euthanasia lexicon.

Would El Maroudi agree those homicidesmurder under Dutch law that are never prosecuted meaningfullyare killing? Orwould she prefer to call it something elsesomething more soothing and deflectingbecause doctors do the lethal deed to end a life they consider not worth the living?

Euthanasia is homicide, e.g., the killing of a human being. Legalized murder one might say, and when without consent, it is murder that goes unpunished.

If El Maroudiwould like to see an example of constructed lies, she should read her own piece.

See more here:

Dutch Euthanasia is Killing - National Review

23 Jul 2017, 9:49 a.m.

Anyone who asks to die must go through a three-step request, the advisory panel recommended.

Victoria's proposed euthanasia laws have been described as the most conservative in the world

People with terminal illnesses could access lethal medication within 10 days of asking, under proposed euthanasia laws for Victoria, made public for the first time on Friday, that have been described as the most conservative in the world.

Serious disability or dementia would not be grounds for eligibility under the proposed laws.

New criminal offences could also be introduced to prosecute those who "induce" a person to request to die.

Details about Victoria's proposed euthanasia laws are contained in 66 recommendations outlined in the Andrews government's Ministerial Advisory Panel report on voluntary assisted dying.

Anyone who asks to die must go through a three-step request, the advisory panel recommended.

The patient must begin with a verbal request, followed by a formal written request, then a final verbal request.

A minimum of 10 days must pass between the first and final request, unless the person is assessed as likely to die within 10 days.

Read more: Couple enter the big sleep together

It is expected that, at first, about 150 people a year will access assisted dying legislation in Victoria and that this would likely increase.

The proposal document will shape the laws set to come before both houses of Victoria's parliament next month and contains the most detailed information yet on what who will be eligible and the safeguards to be introduced.

Politicians will have a conscience vote and are not expected to vote along party lines, with the exception of the Greens who support voluntary euthanasia.

Read more: Poll shows most doctors support euthanasia

Professor Brian Owler, chair of the advisory panel and former president of the Australian Medical Association, has described the proposed laws as conservative and "distinctly Victorian".

"If anything we can be criticised for the burden it may place on someone that is dying," Professor Owler said.

Professor Owler said it was conceivable that a person "could obtain a prescription, visit a chemist to get a dose of medication and self-administer on that day".

But he said this was not the usual experience overseas.

Professor Brian Owler, chairman of the panel, described the proposed laws as conservative and "distinctly Victorian" Photo: Andrew Meares

People must be able to fulfil seven key eligibility criteria including that they are expected to die within a year, are aged over 18, have an incurable disease that will cause death and have a medical condition that is causing suffering that "cannot be relieved in a manner that is deemed tolerable".

People with dementia will not have access to euthanasia.

Patients with motor neurone disease would have access to physician-assisted euthanasia, and help to physically administer a lethal dose if physically unable to do so.

The panel said while it accepted the loss of cognitive capacity may cause distress to some people "voluntary assisted dying must be 'voluntary' that is, a person must have the decision-making capacity to make an autonomous choice at all stages of the process".

People with a mental illness or a disability would only be able to access euthanasia if they had a terminal illness and fulfil the other criteria.

The panel recommended that only the person who is terminally ill and wants to die can make a request to access lethal medication.

Neither a doctor, nor a carer, can request access and neither can a doctor initiate a discussion about ending one's life.

A person may withdraw their request at any time, and once having done so, must begin the process anew if she or he decides to seek access to lethal medication again.

The panel also addressed the potential for "elder abuse" by a relative or carer, for example, who could conceivably benefit financially from the person's death.

To guard against elder abuse, two independent assessments will be done to ensure a person's request to die is voluntary and properly informed.

Anyone who requests to die will be required to create a written declaration of his or her enduring request, which will also be witnessed by two independent witnesses.

Neither witness can be in a position where they can financially benefit from the person's death.

"It is important that elder abuse is addressed, and the panel is of the view that its recommended framework will identify and manage instances of elder abuse," the ministerial advisory panel's report said.

The panel recommended that all requests to die be independently assessed by two medical practitioners, neither of whom is in a position to benefit from the person's death.

One must be a medical practitioner, such as a GP for example, who has been qualified for at least five years.

The other must be a specialist in the terminal illness or condition the person suffers.

Both assessors must have completed specified training beforehand.

Much unites those on either side of the euthanasia debate. Many agree that palliative care needs to be better funded and available to more Victorians sooner.

But they remain fundamentally divided on what rights should be given to a small number of people for whom even the best medical treatment is not enough to relieve their suffering.

Retired nurse Jane Morris says her mother Elizabeth was one of the minority of people who suffereda "horrific" and "torturous"death.

The 77-year-old, who had motor neurone disease, died in August 2014.

Ms Morris said her family remains traumatised by the last day of her mother's life, as an attempt to terminally sedate Elizabeth was unsuccessful, despite"exemplary" palliative care.

"She had pain, breakthrough pain, because her prescribed dose was unable to adequately palliate her pain at all times," Ms Morris said.

"She managed to express to us her fear and in one of her conscious moments was able to convey to us that she wanted to be fed through her PEG tube. This was so very traumatic for all of us, many staff included.

"However, orders were relayed to us by equally distressed staff that we should inform Mum that she was not to be fed.

"Why should we have been expected to inform our dying mother that we could not fulfil a dying wish?"

Ms Morris said every individual should be given a choice about whether they want to access assisted-dying laws.

"I don't care what way people decide. I have respect for everyone's choice. But I don't think one ideology should trump another," she said.

"The memories of mum's horrific death have been seared into our memories."

Palliative Care Victoria is one of the organisations which have declared it will oppose euthanasia laws, saying it "will lead to a growing sense of a duty to die".

They say those who work daily with the dying, Victoria's palliative care staff, are more likely than the general population to oppose assisted-dying laws (popular support stands at more than 75 per cent).

Palliative Care Victoria chief executive Odette Waanders said some still misunderstood palliative care, which meant some were going without help.

"There is a perception that palliative care means that you're giving up, and you're reaching the end of life and that nothing more can be done.

"But it can be done in tandem with treatment."

The organisation is calling for an extra $65 million to be pumped into the sector by the Victorian government to improve access.

If you are troubled by this report, experiencing a personal crisis or thinking about suicide, you can call Lifeline 131 114 or beyondblue 1300 224 636 or visitlifeline.org.auorbeyondblue.org.au

See original here:

Euthanasia: New laws could see Victorians get lethal medicine within 10 days - Illawarra Mercury

Bangladesh News 24 hours

Bangladesh man whose father sought euthanasia dies Bangladesh News 24 hours bdnews24.com first reported how Tofazzel, being unable to bear the cost of continued treatment in Bangladesh and India, appealed for euthanasia for his two sons and a grandson. As doctors said the drugs for the treatment are still under research in the ...

More:

Bangladesh man whose father sought euthanasia dies - Bangladesh News 24 hours

The Wall Street Journal has published an article by Kees van der Staaij, leader of the fundamentalist Dutch Protestant party SGP, headlined In the Netherlands, the Doctor Will Kill You Now.

In the article, which is behind a paywall, Van der Staaij makes a plea for people in other countries to speak out against euthanasia and the way the boundaries of the law are being stretched in the Netherlands.

The Netherlands legalised euthanasia in 2002 for those suffering deadly diseases or in the last stages of life, Van der Staaij writes.

Not long after the legislation was enacted, eligibility was expanded to include those experiencing psychological suffering or dementia. Today pressure is mounting on the Dutch government to legalise a euthanasia pill for those who are not ill, but simply consider their lives to be full.

Van der Staaij is referring to draft legislation proposed by potential coalition partner D66, which wants to introduce assisted suicide for people who consider their lives to be complete. The measure, which is opposed by many doctors, is likely to be central in the ongoing coalition formation talks.

In the article, Van der Staaij goes on to refer to several controversial euthanasia cases in the Netherlands.

The article ends with a call to action. The Dutch government often speaks out when human rights are under pressure in other countries, writes Van der Staaij. Now the fundamental right to life is under pressure in the Netherlands, it is time for others to speak out against Dutch euthanasia practices.

Fundamentalist

According to the Volkskrant, the Wall Street Journal describes Van der Staaij as an MP but does not mention that he is a member of the SGP.

Van der Staaij says on the party website that he is thankful for being given such a platform in the US. We want to show that the so-called strong boundaries [around euthanasia] do not exist, he said. The Netherlands is evidence of this. What was considered unthinkable by pro and anti campaigners 10 to 15 years ago has now become a reality this is an alarm.

Other languages

More articles in other papers are planned and the party has appealed on its website for translators into German, Spanish and French.

The Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij is the most orthodox of Hollands fringe Christian parties and has three seats in the 150-member parliament.

The party believes that the country should be governed entirely on the basis of the ordinances of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. The SGP does not believe women should play an active role in politics and is also against homosexual rights, abortion and euthanasia.

See more here:

SGP leader 'sounds the alarm' about Dutch euthanasia in US newspaper - DutchNews.nl

Former Australian Medical Association head Brian Owler hands over a report to Victorian health minister Jill Hennessy after an independent panel released its recommendations for the states new assisted dying laws. Photograph: Joe Castro/AAP

Terminally ill Victorians with 12 months left to live will be able to legally end their own lives under a proposed assisted dying framework, described as the most conservative in the world.

On Friday, an independent panel chaired by the former Australian Medical Association head Brian Owler handed down its recommendations to the Victorian government on how best to implement voluntary euthanasia legislation.

The recommendations will be turned into a draft bill, which will be put to a vote before the end of the year, as the Daniel Andrews government seeks to become the first Australian state or territory to legalise voluntary assisted dying since the Northern Territorys legislation was repealed in 1997.

The panels final report outlined 66 recommendations and safeguards, with Owler calling it the most conservative model for voluntary assisted dying in the world.

Under the proposed rules, only Victorians who suffer from an incurable disease that is advanced, progressive and will cause death within 12 months, and who are experiencing pain that cannot be relieved tolerably, will be eligible.

Patients could access lethal medication, which must be stored in a locked box, within 10 days of making their first request to a doctor.

Patients would have to be over 18, Victorian residents and must have the decision-making capacity to choose to end their life. This would rule out any person suffering dementia, while mental illness and disability are also said to not be sufficient on their own to qualify a patient for assisted dying.

Further safeguards would also require a patient make three separate requests and receive the approval of two independent doctors. Requests for information are not to be considered formal requests, and the panel also recommended a voluntary assisted dying review board be established to review every assisted death.

The Victorian health minister, Jill Hennessy, said the move to legalise euthanasia had widespread community support and she would introduce legislation, subject to a conscience vote, by the end of the year.

Government will now consider this report and will respond in the next couple of weeks, she said.

The minister said she was optimistic the bill would pass, but committed to have it voted on as soon as possible. She also committed to an 18-month window between the bill passing and the legislation coming into effect.

Each and every single day I am approached by Victorians who are at the end of their life or who are caring for someone at the end of their life, for whom law reform cant come soon enough, she said. The vast majority of the mainstream support a change to the law.

The panel also recommended that new criminal offences with severe penalties should be created to prevent people coercing others to end their lives, though no set terms had been decided.

Doctors who are asked to assess a patients eligibility for assisted dying would be required to undertake specific training, and practitioners would be able to conscientiously object to providing advice.

The patient would also be able to rescind their request at any time.

Fridays report comes after an extensive process of consultation, including a parliamentary inquiry in June last year that recommended assisted dying laws. In May, the director of Dying with Dignity NSW, Shayne Higson, told Guardian Australia the Victorian bill had been the most thorough process in the history of this movement.

Victorias continued push to legalise assisted dying could encourage other states to attempt similar legislation.

In New South Wales, a cross-party bill sponsored by five MPs was unveiled in May, while Western Australias health minister, Roger Cook, has stated he supports voluntary euthanasia and has encouraged the drafting of a private members bill.

In South Australia, both the premier, Jay Weatherill, and the opposition leader, Steven Marshall, support assisted dying, and in November last year, a bill to legalise euthanasia was defeated by only vote, after the Speaker was called on to break a tie.

See the article here:

Victoria euthanasia laws: report outlines path for terminally ill to end own lives - The Guardian

Steve Horrell shorrell@edwpub.net

Dozens of people on Wednesday protested the killing of two pit bulls and three other dogs that were being held by Madison County Animal Control.

The protesters held signs outside the Administration Building but moved indoors to listen to three speakers address County Board members at the monthly meeting.

Anne Schmidt, the executive director of the Metro East Humane Society, said the dogs that were killed were highly adoptable and she characterized their deaths as unnecessary and an affront to the countys No Kill policy.

Multiple policies were broken, Schmidt said. I, no, we demand that those responsible be held accountable for the policies that have been broken. If you truly believe in Making Madison County a No Kill county, Im sure you will be highly supportive of this demand.

The controversy began after a Madison County family turned the two pit bulls over to Animal Control on July 3. They were euthanized four days later.

Last fall Madison County Board Chairman Kurt Prenzler campaigned on a promise to extend the mandatory wait time from three to five business days to 10 business days.

Three months ago the countys Public Safety Committee endorsed a No Kill with a goal to save healthy and adoptable dogs and cats in the possession of Madison County Animal Control.

Schmidt said that before the dogs were euthanized, Animal Control employees were informed that animal welfare organizations were interested in obtaining the dogs so they could find a family to love them and care for them as they deserved.

But when representatives from the organizations arrived, they were told the dogs had been put down.

Ledy Van Kavage, an attorney and a long-time animal rights activist, urged County Board members to make changes in order to stop the culture of killing that has permeated Animal Control.

Dawn Boner, a Madison County resident, acknowledged that there are times when animals need to be euthanized, especially if they become feral or aggressive. No Kill, in practical terms, means not euthanizing adoptable pets that have an opportunity to be rescued.

It is always a sad time and a last resort when an animal has to be euthanized, she said. The same can be said for Madison County Animal Control. It is never something that anyone takes lightly or encourages.

After the meeting, Madison County Board Chairman Kurt Prenzler said the two pit bulls had been fighting each other a lot. The county has had no written policy about how long the county should hold an animal before it is euthanized. This week a policy is being drafted and will be sent to Animal Control advising employees that no animal will be put down without the written approval of Animal Control Director Ryan Jacob.

Members of the Public Safety Committee will sign the document, he said. Basically, its going to be that we all understand this, and its in writing now.

The rest is here:

Protestors gather following recent Animal Control euthanasia - The ... - The Edwardsville Intelligencer

On July 20, the Wall Street Journal published an article by Kees van der Straaij, who is a member of the Netherlands parliament. The following is the Wall Street Journal article In the Netherlands, the doctor will kill you now.

In 2002 the Netherlands became the first country to legalize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide for those suffering deadly diseases or in the last stages of life. Not long after the legislation was enacted, eligibility was expanded to include those experiencing psychological suffering or dementia. Today pressure is mounting for the Dutch government to legalize a euthanasia pill for those who are not ill, but simply consider their lives to be full.

Proponents of assisted suicide continue to claim that safeguards already built into Dutch law are sufficient to reduce the risk of abuse. They point out that medical professionals are required to assess whether a persons suffering is indeed unbearable and hopeless.

These safeguards do exist. In practice, however, they are hard to enforce. A poignant illustration was recently aired on Dutch television. An older woman stricken with semantic dementia had lost her ability to use words to convey meaning. Upsy-daisy, lets go, she said. Both her husband and her physician at the end-of-life clinic interpreted her words to mean, I want to die. A review committee judged her euthanasia was in accordance both with the law and her earlier written instructions, an outcome very few would have imagined possible as recently as 10 years ago.

Such episodes have many Dutch people worried about the erosion of protections for the socially vulnerable and medically fragile. A broad and heated public debate recently flared about whether doctors may administer fatal drugs to those with severe dementia based on a previously signed advance directive. In several controversial cases, assisted suicide was not directly discussed with patients who were incapable of reaffirming earlier written death wishes. In one case, a doctor slipped a dementia patient a sleeping pill in some apple sauce so that he could be easily taken home and given a deadly injection.

Hundreds of Dutch physicians signed a declaration outlining their moral objection to these increasingly common practices. Nonetheless, the Dutch government stands by its claim that the law permits doctors to end such patients lives. Meanwhile, the Dutch Right to Die Society, a national euthanasia lobby, keeps pressing to take further steps, arguing that individuals should have the option to step out of life.

Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter.

But is this argument really convincing? Those seeking death because their lives are full are often haunted by loneliness and despair. Some elderly people fear bothering their children with their social and medical needs. They dont want to be perceived as burdensome.

Legalizing the euthanasia pill could put even more pressure on the vulnerable, disabled and elderly. More than 60% of geriatric-care specialists already say they have felt pressure from patients family members to euthanize elderly relatives. Will the day come when society considers it entirely normaleven naturalfor people who grow old or become sick simply to pop the pill and disappear? If so, those who desire to continue living in spite of societys expectations will have some serious explaining to do.

All of this clearly shows the slippery slope of the euthanasia path. Contrary to the emphatic advice of a special advisory committee chaired by a prominent member of a liberal-democratic party, the outgoing Dutch government wishes to expand and extend the euthanasia law to those who consider their lives to be full. The pressing question is where the slope ends and the abyss begins. Will those with intellectual disabilities or physical defects also be empowered to step out of life? Will those battling thoughts of suicide be encouraged to opt for a dignified death in place of excellent psychiatric care?

The governments most fundamental task is to protect its citizens. The Dutch government, to its credit, often speaks out when fundamental human rights are under threat around the world. Now that the fundamental right to life is under threat in the Netherlands, its time for others to speak out about the Dutch culture of euthanasia.

Links to other articles concerning euthanasia in the Netherlands.

LifeNews.com Note: Alex Schadenberg is the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and you can read his blog here.

See more here:

Activists Want Dutch Government to Legalize "Euthanasia Pill" to Kill ... - LifeNews.com

Like many fellow Fayette County taxpayers, I was disappointed in the July 13 decision by the Fayette County Board of Commissioners, despite listening to hours of respectful, heartfelt, insightful opposition statements, to vote 4-1 in favor of a regressive euthanasia policy for population management in the Fayette County Animal Shelter.

That was their right, and the shelter director made the proposal to set guidelines for managing a shelter that is way too small and antiquated, with a staff and budget inadequate for Fayette Countys growing, affluent population.

But euthanasia for managing the shelter population is a euphemism. Its euthanasia when you put a terminally ill, suffering animal out of its misery. When you end the life of an animal so you can keep 25 percent of your cages empty, and the only thing wrong with the animal is that it doesnt have a home, you are killing.

The new policy is about killing, not euthanasia. Lets have the courage to call it by its proper name.

Sharon Marchisello Peachtree City, Ga.

letters

Go here to see the original:

'Euthanasia'? Call it what it is: killing - The Citizen - The Citizen.com

As noted already (here and here), evolutionary biologistJerry Coyne recently endorsed euthanasia for seriously handicapped babies, which I believe is deeply immoral.

Of course, the most horrendous thing about euthanasia is that it is the intentional killing of a sick or handicapped person. But there are other aspects of euthanasia that are nearly as horrendous. Most notable is the corruption of the medical profession itself by the act of killing patients.

To reflect on this, consider this question: In what way is killing a part of medical practice? Doctors spend years studying anatomy and physiology and pharmacology and surgery in order to heal, of course, but also in order not to kill. Im a neurosurgeon, and I devote a great deal of my time professionally to trying not to kill people, because killing a patient is a very real risk in neurosurgery. There are textbooks written on avoidance of serious complications in my specialty, and before every operation I review what could go wrong, how I can avoid it, and what I can do to correct it if the worst happens.

I teach medical students, and one of the things I stress to them is that there is one overarching ethical principle in medicine: when you are interacting with a patient, your only intent should be to make the patients life better. It is a rare privilege to be a member of a profession that is solely devoted to the well-being of every person for whom you provide care. There is a sacred aspect to the physician-patient relationship the physician always acts for the patients best interest. It is part of the essence of medicine to learn how not to cause harm. And deliberate killing whatever the motive is intrinsically to cause harm. Killing the deliberate elimination of the person is the ultimate harm.

Euthanasia turns the essence of medicine this principle of benevolence on its head. Euthanasia is the deliberate killing of patients by their doctors. Doctors practicing euthanasia must calculate how much of lethal drug to give a patient in order to ensure that it kills him. A doctor fails at euthanasia if he is an insufficiently skilled killer. What kind of medical practice is it in which it is malpractice if the patient survives? What kind of medical profession is it in which students are trained to kill? What kind of medical profession is it in which a doctor has a bad day at the office when a patient doesnt die by his hand?

Euthanasia by physicians is analogous to a teacher deliberately lying to a student, or a parent deliberately harming his child. It is a betrayal. It matters not what the motive for the killing is.

Killing is not a medical treatment a fact implicitly confirmed by the universal prohibition by medical societies against physicians participating actively in legal executions. Killing is no more a cure for suffering than it is a cure for cancer or a cure for depression or a cure for acne. Killing is simply the elimination of the patient. Elimination of the patient isnt a cure for anything, any more than demolishing your house is a cure for a leaky roof.

There are many legitimate ways a physician can alleviate suffering there is a whole medical specialty, palliative care, devoted to the alleviation of suffering when a cure is not possible. Hospices provide wonderful care for the terminally ill, and prevent much suffering. No patient needs to suffer at the end of life. No patient ever needs to be killed.

Its reasonable to ask: Why do euthanasia enthusiasts want doctors involved in killing anyway? It takes no real medical skill to kill someone (murderers have been doing it just fine without training for millennia). The reason that euthanasia enthusiasts enlist doctors is obvious: It provides a medical imprimatur to homicide. Killing a handicapped baby doesnt seem so bad when it is dressed up as medical care. Enlisting doctors in euthanasia is a way to keep the fingerprints of euthanasia advocates off of the act of killing. Doctors orders! puts lipstick on a very ugly act.

The ethical response of the medical profession to medical killing is: Not in our name. In reply to Dr. Coynes call for medical killing of handicapped babies, I reply: Dont involve the medical profession in your atrocity. It takes no skill to kill a baby. If you want to kill, out of mercy or whatever, leave doctors out of it. Do it yourself.

Image: Hippocrates, Stuyvesant Polyclinic, New York, NY, by Tony Fischer via Flickr.

Visit link:

The Second Most Horrendous Thing About Euthanasia - Discovery Institute

The Sun

What is euthanasia and assisted suicide law in the UK and why do campaigners want to change it? The Sun THE debate around euthanasia and assisted dying in the UK is a controversial and complicated one with some saying choosing when to die is to die with dignity, while others claim it undermines the value of human life. So what is euthanasia and assisted ... and more »

Read this article:

What is euthanasia and assisted suicide law in the UK and why do campaigners want to change it? - The Sun