Category Archives: Euthanasia

THERE has been an overwhelming response by concerned conservationists via social media in the wake of reports that up to five dingoes have been euthanised on Fraser Island so far this year.

While three of the dingoes were sick or injured, the other two were considered to be of a high risk or threatening.

Michelle Fischer, via Facebook said "every tourist who feeds a Dingo on Fraser (or any wild animal anywhere) is ultimately responsible for the death of that Dingo.

"Those Dingos then look to people for food and are killed because they've become 'aggressive.'

"I don't understand why Dingos cannot be, for want of a better term, 'used' as another attraction on the island.

"Set up feeding stations and feed them twice a day.

"But no, kill them off, that seems a much better option apparently.

Jenny Montaser shared the concern saying it was a "disgrace to even contemplating killing dingos for any reason.

"It is their territory, humans need to be restricted in their interaction and be responsible when they are there.

"What happens when you imbalance a closed ecosystem by removing its alpha predator?

A spokeswoman for the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service said rangers on the island continued to do all they could to ensure visitors and residents were dingo-safe.

During the holidays, rangers increase patrols in and around campgrounds and speak to campers, day tourists, resort management and staff about reducing the risk of negative interactions between dingoes and people.

Visitors can report a negative dingo interaction by calling 4127 9150.

Read more:

Outrage over dingo euthanasia - Gympie Times

Posted July 02, 2017 14:42:28

Conservative Tasmanian Labor MP Madeleine Ogilvie has launched a scathing attack on the party's powerful Left faction, claiming unelected representatives are wielding too much power.

A spat broke out yesterday at the annual party conference between the Right and Left of the Labor Party over the decision of several MPs to vote against voluntary euthanasia legislation earlier this year.

The Left believed the issue had been agreed upon as part of the Labor platform and subsequently MPs were bound to support it.

A motion put forward by union representative Adam Clarke called for members who voted against the bill to be disciplined by the party and even expelled, arguing the only issues within Labor that allowed a conscience vote were abortion and same-sex marriage.

Mr Clarke said members who did not support the legislation were in breach of the party's constitution.

"Once we make a decision, that's it," he said.

"That becomes the view of the party unit, it's how we operate on every other issue.

"Once we determine our platform, we go out there as one and we vote for it as one."

The Health and Community Services Union's Robbie Moore backed the move, and went even further to name Ms Ogilvie, David Llewellyn and Shane Broad.

"We are no longer going to accept it," Mr Moore said.

"If you do it again, I will be moving to expel people."

Member for Denison Ms Ogilvie labelled it a "ridiculous suggestion".

"There's some very loud voices in the room, to make that kind of statement is really quite out there, it goes beyond what I'd expect to see at state conference, it's disappointing," she said.

"I take on board all views, I will listen to what people come to say, but when it comes to the exercise of my parliamentary vote that is mine and mine alone.

"If those with the loud voices want to exert more influence in Parliament they ought to get themselves elected."

She said members did not have the power to expel her.

"I think we should bring this to a head, I would like to see them come forward, if they are serious about that then they should put their case on the table and let's have that discussion," she said.

"It's no secret that the Left faction in Tasmania is very strong and very powerful, and I am concerned about that, I am concerned about the balance of power between the moderates and the Left."

Last month, a bill to allow euthanasia in certain circumstances, sponsored by Labor stalwart Lara Giddings and Greens leader Cassy O'Connor, was voted down by the House of Assembly.

Labor leader Rebecca White said a conscience vote was allowed as the legislation was put forward as a Private Member's Bill.

Topics: state-parliament, federal---state-issues, alp, george-town-7253, burnie-7320, hobart-7000

See the rest here:

Euthanasia vote exposes factional tensions in Tasmanian ALP at state conference - ABC Local

A Humane Society organization in Ohio is working to save 40 dogs from being euthanized, WCMH reported.

The dogs are being sent north from Houstons K-9 Angels Rescue to the Humane Society of Delaware County.The project is being coordinated from Ohio by Natalie Yeager, a former Houston resident, WCMH reported.

Im thinking, I have people asking for puppies to adopt and were having trouble finding enough for all the people who want them here, she told WCMH.

The trip from Houston took 17 hours, and the dogs arrived Thursday night, WSYX reported. Once the puppies are cleared medically they will be available for adoption, WCMH reported. Until then they will reside in foster homes.

We are going to keep adults here. Were going to keep some puppies here also to have them fixed, spayed and neutered, Yeager told WSYX.Some of the younger ones are being sent out into foster until theyve had their shots and theyre ready for adoption.

See original here:

40 dogs transported from Texas to Ohio to avoid euthanasia - Atlanta Journal Constitution

by: Bob D Angelo, Cox Media Group National Content Desk Updated: Jun 30, 2017 - 6:16 AM

BLUE SPRINGS. Mo. - A Missouri woman who fostered a pregnant dog that was on a euthanasia list was rewarded Sunday when 18 puppies were born to the mixed-breed dog.

>> Read more trending news

Its heaven. Puppy pile, you cant get any better than that, Ashlee Holland toldWDAF.

Holland fostered Ava, a pregnant golden retriever-chow mix two weeks before the dog was due.

She had no other choice, no other hope, Holland toldPeople magazine.No dog deserves to be put to sleep for space.

I was aware she was having puppies but X-rays didnt show how many, Holland told WDAF.

Holland said her 9-year-old son, a big Kansas City Royals fan, named the puppies after some sports figures.

We got Ned Yost, Dayton Moore, Buck ONeil, Holland said.We got Esky and Royal.

Holland said Ava and her puppies will be ready for adoption in eight weeks, pending medical examinations. She has sincestarted aFacebook page for Ava and her pups.

And just to clarify, I know that a lot of articles are reporting that I adopted Ava, Holland wrote on the page.That is not the case. She is my foster.

Time to end this night with some puppy dreams

2017 Cox Media Group.

More here:

Dog gives birth to 18 puppies after woman saves it from euthanasia list - WSB Atlanta

Politicians in the Netherlands are discussing the possibility of legalizing euthanasia for healthy people. The proposed Completed Life Bill would allow any person age 75 or over who decides their life is complete to receive euthanasia. It doesnt matter if they are otherwise perfectly healthy.

Under current Dutch law, a person only becomes eligible for euthanasia when they have a terminal illness and are suffering unbearably. Pia Dijkstra, an MP for Dutch political party D66, is preparing to introduce the Completed Life Bill. D66 spearheaded most of the groundbreaking socially progressive legislation for which the Netherlands is famous. They are historically a smaller partytheyve never had a Prime Ministerbut theyve proven themselves to be politically effective.

D66 would eventually like to legalize euthanasia for any adult who wishes to die. They openly admit that the Completed Life Bill is a step towards realizing that goal. In March, D66 leader Alexander Pechtold was confronted on a political talk show by a 57-year-old man who said he wishes to die. He asked why the Completed Life Bill is only persons age 75 and older. I have to wait 18 more years. I dont feel like waiting 18 years. I want it now, he said.

Pechtold replied, Its my personal opinion that in our civilization dying is an individual consideration. You didnt ask to be brought into the world. He went on to explain that currently there is political support for legalizing euthanasia for healthy elderly persons. If we want to maintain that support and not disrupt the discussion then we have to take it step-by-step. In 2002 we passed the euthanasia law for unbearable suffering. In my view, Pia Dijkstra can now continue persuading parliament and the country toin my own words and personal opiniontake the next step for our civilization.

Ironically, the Dutch public news broadcaster decided to include a notice with the number for a suicide prevention hotline directly below where the video of Pechtolds comments is embedded on their website.

If the Completed Life Bill comes to a vote in Parliament, it will most likely pass. Prime Minister Mark Rutte of the Peoples Party for Freedom and Democracy has said he is willing to enact it. The question is whether the bill will be placed on the legislative agenda.

In Dutch politics, no party ever wins a majority of seats in parliament. The largest party has to form a coalition with several smaller ones. National elections were held in March, and Prime Minister Rutte is currently negotiating with D66 and two Christian partiesthe Christian Democratic Appeal and the Christian Unionabout forming a coalition. Both Christian parties are opposed to the Completed Life Bill. The Christian Union in particular is likely to make preventing a vote on the bill a condition of joining the coalition.

While politicians debate such a drastic expansion of euthanasia, the manner in which it is currently being carried out in the Netherlands is coming under fire. Earlier this year, a group of 220 doctors took out an advertisement in a major newspaper saying they will refuse to euthanize patients with advanced dementia who are unable give verbal consent. Under Dutch law, an elderly person who is still compos mentis can write a legal declaration stating that they wish to be euthanized when they develop advanced dementia. They can specify conditions about when they want to die, e.g. when they no longer recognize their immediate family.

The doctors who signed the advertisement say they cannot accept these legal declarations. They write, Giving a deadly injection to a patient with advanced dementia on the basis of their written declaration? To someone who cannot confirm that they wish to die? No, were not going to do that. Our moral abhorrence at ending the life of a defenseless person is too great.

Many of the doctors who signed the advertisement actually administer euthanasia, but they draw the line with patients who are unaware of what is being done to them.

The doctors were motivated by a 2016 case in which the Dutch committee that oversees euthanasia concluded a doctor had acted negligently. An elderly woman with advanced Alzheimers had previously written a legal declaration requesting euthanasia, but her specifications about the point at which she was ready to die were open to interpretation. The doctor who euthanized her began by secretly placing a sedative in her coffee. The woman subsequently woke up wide-eyed and resisted the fatal injection. She was restrained by family members and the doctor proceeded.

The controversy flared up again in June when Boudewijn Chabot, a psychogeriatrician and prominent euthanasia supporter, published a 2,600-word op-ed in which he argued that euthanasia now getting out of hand. He believes that the euthanasia oversight committee is lax in carrying out its duty and also insufficiently transparent about what it communicates to the public. Chabot argued that legal protections for patients have been quietly eroded over time. He is particularly concerned about the way euthanasia is administered to patients with advanced dementia or chronic psychiatric illness.

In 2016, there were 6,091 reported instances of euthanasia in the Netherlands. Of those, 141 were for patients with dementia. That is up from 12 such cases in 2009. Also for patients with chronic psychiatric illness, there were 0 instances of euthanasia in 2009, but by 2016 that number had risen to 60. The numbers are small, you could argue, Chabot writes. But look at the rapid increaseThe financial gutting of the health care sector has particularly harmed the quality of life of these types of patients. Its logical to conclude that euthanasia is going to skyrocket.

Chabot is concerned that the legal guidelines for euthanasia for patients with physical illnesses are applied without any further qualification to patients with dementia and psychiatric illness. He believes that simply doesnt work and can lead to ethical violations.

Speaking to Dutch media, Dijkstra said the concerns expressed in Chabots op-ed have no bearing on the Completed Life Bill. The euthanasia law is being carried out carefully. Its a pity that certain people constantly want to bring it up for discussion. Though, in this instance, it is doctors who practice euthanasia who are saying things have gone too far.

Emily Friere is a freelance writer based in Great Britain. She writes about both English and American culture and politics.

Read this article:

Netherlands Considers Euthanasia For Healthy People - The Federalist

At its best Roman Catholic piety can be enormously powerful. It offers what we may call a way of affirmationa sacramental understanding of the countless ways in which we meet the holy God in the everyday life of bodily gestures, repetitive prayer, candles, motherhood. And it does this without losing an equally powerful way of negation, which forbids us to suppose we can capture or control the presence of the transcendent God in such ways. But precisely because this intricate system of spiritual practice is so powerful, it can also go bad in powerful ways. Affirmation is safe only when negation is also present. One can become fascinated not so much with God as with ones own experience of candles, beads, genuflection, and a virgin mother. And then one may lose the transcendent otherness of that God in a way that would hardly be possible for, say, a serious Calvinism (which would, of course, have its own way of going bad).

This was, I have to confess, my first thought after reading At His Own Wake, Celebrating Life and the Gift of Death, a recent New York Times article about the death by euthanasia in Canada of a man named John Shields. Clearly intended to elicit pathos in its readers, the account is, by my lights, drowning in bathos. Let me admit straightforwardly at the outset: I dont much like the John Shields portrayed in this article, though he was much loved by some who knew him. I like even less some of the other characters who play significant roles in Mr. Shieldss deathas, for example, Penny Allport, the life-cycle celebrant whose task it was to orchestrate and choreograph the homemade rituals, drawn from countless different (and incompatible) cultural and religious traditions, that shaped Mr. Shieldss last hours and his death. I am not at all fond of Dr. Stefanie Green who, needing a better life-work balance than her practice of maternity and newborn care permitted, turned to a focus on implementing Canadas year-old legalized medical assistance in dying. Birth and death, deliveries in and outI find it very transferable, she says. Both are really intense and really important. (Is it just an accident that the title of the Times article celebrates lifenot the gift of lifewhile celebrating the gift of death? Perhaps the two are not so transferable after all.)

These are minor dislikes, however, compared with my reaction to the shameful inability of the Times and its journalist/reporter/essayist, Catherine Porter, to help readers not just to sympathize (as we should) with Mr. Shields in his suffering but also to think critically, distinguishing bathos from pathos. Evidently Ms. Porter was present as a silent participant throughout the events recounted in her article, an article the Times deemed important enough to run on its front page. Indeed, it is hard to detect any critical distance at all in her authorial voice. In the context of our societys deep divisions and confusions about the practice of euthanasia, this article amounts to a puff piece aimed at evoking support for one side of a complicated moral argument. A shorter piece on the op-ed page would have been more honest.

John Shields was evidently a man with great energy and a capacity to take interest in many aspects of life, though also in his own perceived uniqueness. Ordained a priest in the Roman Catholic Church, he left after four years, though not before being prohibited from preaching and teaching at his parish in Austin, Texas. After that he became a social worker and, later, president of the British Columbia Government Employees Union, over which he presided for fourteen years. After his first wife died of lymphoma he eventually married for a second time. He studied some Gestalt therapy, learned dowsing, and came to regard himself as a spiritual cosmologist, believing that the universe was conscious and that everything was inextricably connected. Having left institutional religion for a kind of generalized spirituality strikes me as rather less countercultural than Mr. Shieldss self-image would suggestand certainly far from unique. I come forth at this precise moment to contribute my unique gifts to the great unfolding, he wrote in a memoir. And while this does not exactly bring Hegel to mind, we get the idea and can see why Ms. Allport would call his death his great blooming.

His character was marked by the twists and turns of the several directions his life had taken. He loved rituals, which began with the Catholic Masses of his childhood. To be of service was a central theme in his life, as was the theme of freedom. He was always growing and exploring. Sadly, though, in his mid-seventies he was diagnosed with amyloidosis, a disease in which abnormal proteins accumulate in the bodys organs, eventually causing death. Mr. Shields gradually lost feeling in and use of his arms and legs, finally having to enter hospice care. In his debilities he felt a loss of dignity, a diminished condition that he found demeaning and unacceptable.

As it happened, the man and the moment were well matched. For only a year before Canada had legalized what it calls medical assistance in dying. This permits not just assisted suicide but also euthanasia, in which a physician actually administers the death-dealing drugs. The law does prohibit euthanasia that is nonvoluntarythat is, when the dying person is, for whatever reason, no longer able to consent at the time the drugs are actually administered. This was in fact a worry for Shields and his wife: as his condition swiftly declined, they feared that if he waited too long, he might be unable to give his consent when the chosen day arrived. And, in fact, it is hard to believe that this restriction can long surviveat least in British Columbia where, according to the Times article, an increasing number of patients are eagerly embracing euthanasia. Dr. Green herself, while adhering to the laws limits, suggests that there should be more flexibility in the law, a flexibility that would permit euthanasia for those who requested it before reaching a condition in which they are unable to consent.

The Canadian law also specifies that, in order to qualify for euthanasia, an adult must be in an irremediable medical condition, experiencing suffering he or she finds intolerable, and likely to die fairly soon in any case. It is just as hard to believe that these conditions can hold for too long. Patients with severe but not life-threatening disabilities may well find their condition demeaning and undignified. Why exactly the fact that they are not likely to die soon should matter more than the felt indignity of their condition is far from clear.

In short, the Canadian law tries to ground permission for euthanasia in both compassion for those who suffer and a freedom to make important choices about the course and duration of ones life. But, as Daniel Callahan noted years ago, these criteria are on a collision course. If freedom and self-determination are this importantso important that we have a right to help in ending our lifehow can we insist that such help may be offered only to those who are suffering irremediably? On the other hand, if the suffering of others makes so powerful a claim upon us that we should be willing to cause their death in order to end the suffering, it is not clear why we should limit our merciful help only to those who are still able to request it. After all, fully autonomous people are not the only ones who can suffer greatly. We may safely predict that the limits will gradually be extended.

Continue reading here:

Pathos, Bathos, and Euthanasia - Commonweal

A Catholic hospital in Canada is being accused of failing to support the rights of medical personnel who oppose euthanasia.

After the board of St. Boniface Hospital in Winnepeg approved euthanizing patients in extreme circumstances, the Catholic Health Authority took over the board and replaced its members. The order was also reversed but with an agreement to perform assessments of patients who want to die, which was viewed as a compromise to Canadian laws.

Because the assessment is required by law, says Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, the Catholic hospital is directly involved in the act of killing a person.

"Which is morally unacceptable," says the anti-euthanasia activist.

Canada's Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that patients can legally ask doctors to end their lives and a federal law took effect last year.

A slim majority of medical staff at St. Boniface stated in a survey they agree with medical assistant in dying, or MAID, but a single-digit minority opposed the policy at St. Boniface, Canadian media has reported.

A senator who helped write the assisted dying bill has stated the Catholic hospital created an unconstitutional barrier after it overturned the policy, creating "unequal access" to fellow Canadians.

"That's not the way we provide universal health care in this country," the Liberal senator, James Cowan, told Canadian media.

He also suggested that individual doctors can legally object and opt out of participating but an institution - such as the hospital - cannot.

Schadenberg notes that a court case was heard June 13 in Ontario for doctors who are refusing to participate and are challenging the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Contradicting the hospital's survey, Schadenberg claims there has been a groundswell of opposition to St. Boniface's pro-euthanasia stance.

The staff at Onenewsnow.com strives daily to bring you news from a biblical perspective. If you benefit from this platform and want others to know about it please consider a generous gift today.

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved.

Read the rest here:

Canadian hospital fence-walks euthanasia - OneNewsNow

BLUE SPRINGS. Mo.

A Missouri woman who fostered a pregnant dog that was on a euthanasia list was rewarded Sunday when 18 puppies were born to the mixed-breed dog.

Its heaven. Puppy pile, you cant get any better than that, Ashlee Holland toldWDAF.

Holland fostered Ava, a pregnant golden retriever-chow mix two weeks before the dog was due.

She had no other choice, no other hope, Holland toldPeople magazine.No dog deserves to be put to sleep for space.

I was aware she was having puppies but X-rays didnt show how many, Holland told WDAF.

Holland said her 9-year-old son, a big Kansas City Royals fan, named the puppies after some sports figures.

We got Ned Yost, Dayton Moore, Buck ONeil, Holland said.We got Esky and Royal.

Holland said Ava and her puppies will be ready for adoption in eight weeks, pending medical examinations. She has sincestarted aFacebook page for Ava and her pups.

And just to clarify, I know that a lot of articles are reporting that I adopted Ava, Holland wrote on the page.That is not the case. She is my foster.

Time to end this night with some puppy dreams

Link:

Dog gives birth to 18 pups after woman saves her from euthanasia list - Atlanta Journal Constitution

When is death a duty? Two days ago, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of doctors over the parents in a battle over a baby with a rare and fatal genetic disease. The ECHR followed rulings from British courts, declaring that doctors in the UKs National Health Service could stop life support rather than allow the parents to bring Charlie Gard to the US for experimental treatment:

Born in August, Charlie Gard has a rare genetic disorder known as mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. Caused by a genetic mutation, it leads to weakened muscles and organ dysfunction, among other symptoms, with a poor prognosis for most patients.

Charlie is on life support and has been in the intensive care unit at the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London since October. His doctors wish to take him off life support, but his parents disagree.

Charlies parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, wanted the hospital to release Charlie into their custody so they can take him to the United States for an experimental treatment.

The domestic courts concluded that it would be lawful for the hospital to withdraw life sustaining treatment because it was likely that Charlie would suffer significant harm if his present suffering was prolonged without any realistic prospect of improvement, and the experimental therapy would be of no effective benefit, a press release from the court announcing the decision said.

The couple had raised nearly 1.4 million for that effort, which would have ended NHS involvement in the case, but the courts decided that they and not the parents were in position to decide that death rather than potential treatment was what was best for the child. Now the parentscannot even take the baby home to allow him to die there rather than in hospital, even though they pledged to cover all the costs:

Connie Yates and Chris Gard have been told by Great Ormond Street their sons life support will be switched off tomorrow but he cannot leave the ward.

The couples final wish for Charlie has been blocked and his mother Connie said today in a video for MailOnline: We promised our little boy every single day that we would take him home.

Mr Gard added: We want to give him a bath at home, put him in a cot which he has never slept in but we are now being denied that. We know what day our son is going to die but dont get a say in how that will happen.

Note that there was no disagreement between the parents over the course of care they wanted for Charlie. The two of them have lived at the hospital with their baby, and have been equally united in their desire to try anything to save his life. This is not a dispute between relatives over who should have control over care (as was the issue in the Terri Schiavo case) but whether the state or the parents should have the final say. In a single-payer system such as NHS, the courts have clearly ruled that the state has more standing on whether to allow someone to die than the person or his/her nearest relations. And now, the state through its socialized-medicine providers refuse to even allow the death to take place under the circumstances desired by the family.

While this case does not directly relate to euthanasia laws, there is nonetheless a cultural and moral link to European embrace of utilitarian policies on life. In this case, neither the patient nor the family wanted an end to a life, but the state ruled that compassion demanded the withdrawal of life support even absent the need to conserve resources for care. Critics have long warned that the embrace of euthanasia would eventually transform it from a choice to a duty, and that certainly seems to be what happened in the tragic case of Charlie Gard.

National Reviews Ian Tuttle warns that well see a lot more such cases in the future:

According to the Honourable Mr. Justice Nicholas Francis of the High Courts Family Division, who authored the decision subsequently upheld by the higher courts, death is in Charlies best interests. There was no scientific basis for believing that Charlie would respond positively to the experimental American treatment; meanwhile, there is unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage. If, wrote Justice Francis, Charlies damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now? It was with a heavy heart, the judge said, that he sided with the doctors. Charlie should be permitted to die with dignity. In conclusion, Justice Francis praised the parents he had just overruled: Most importantly of all, I want to thank Charlies parents for their brave and dignified campaign on his behalf, but more than anything to pay tribute to their absolute dedication to their wonderful boy, from the day that he was born.

So it was that successive courts in the United Kingdom and in Europe simultaneously found that Connie Yates and Chris Gard had devoted themselves unhesitatingly to their sons welfare for ten months, and also that Yates and Gard could not be trusted to act in their sons best interests.

The question, then, is not what would Charlie Gard want a question no one can answer. The question is what do we owe to people such as Charlie, who cannot speak for themselves? What duty of care do we owe them simply on account of their being human beings, who are by nature possessed of an inalienable dignity? What obligations do we have to those who suffer, and how should we understand their suffering? And, pertinent to this case, under what circumstances should the tightest bonds of affection those between parent and child be subordinated to the judgment of the state?

The precedent established by Charlie Gards case will metastasize, as similar decisions have. It will be made to apply to children with more-familiar illnesses and better prognoses; it will be used to dismiss the input of parents whose values and priorities when it comes to medical care and end-of-life issues do not align with those of the state; it may be used simply to clear beds for worthier patients in a health-care system with very limited resources. This, presumably, will be compassionate, too.

Any day now, theyll kill Charlie Gard. But its in his own best interest. Dont you see?

Youll see it a lot, and eventually not just in Europe, either. Socialized medicine requires rationing by the state rather than by private-market forces, and that will be true in the US if we continue to go down the single-payer sinkhole.

Continue reading here:

Single payer and Charlie Gard: When euthanasia becomes a duty - Hot Air

There are red flags. And then there are really big red flags.

Dr. Boudewijn Chabot is considered the patron saint of euthanasia in the Netherlands, which he still supports. But hes now sounding the alarm that the killing has gone too far.

This should be a glaring wakeup call for Americans who are complacent about physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia, or actually support it.

In 1991, Chabot, a geriatric psychiatrist, thumbed his nose at Dutch law and admittedly euthanized a physically healthy 52-year-old social worker. The High Court found him guilty without punishment. Until recently, he had celebrated the sea change ushered in by his deadly action.

He is now singing a different tune after research revealed how many individuals with dementia are being euthanized. The numbers are skyrocketing among this segment of society that has been the central focus of his professional career. Chabot also is alarmed with whos euthanizing them and the process being circumvented to carry it out.

In the past, advocates of euthanasia have touted three important safeguards governing Hollands euthanasia law: 1) a voluntary and deliberate request: 2) an individual with unbearable suffering without the prospect of improvements; and 3) no reasonable alternative to euthanasia is available.

According to Chabot, these so-called safeguards are quickly falling by the wayside. Silently, the very foundation of the law is being eroded, he said.

He offers evidence to prove his point.

Safeguard No. 1 requires that the person who wants to be euthanized provides a verbal, deliberate request. That has now been substituted with a written a letter of intent which can easily be forged or manipulated to represent the patients wishes. The law also doesnt require that the physician administering euthanasia have a therapeutic relationship with the patient, which makes it difficult at best to know if it is a genuine request. Regardless, Chabot doesnt believe a person in the advanced stages of dementia can authentically request euthanasia when they are unaware of what will actually be happening.

Chabot was further concerned to find out that sometimes when permission isnt given, its not needed. If necessary, physical force is used. He cited a doctor who started the euthanasia process by sneaking a sedative into the patients coffee. The patient resisted the lethal injection and family members held her down as he killed her. In the end, the physician still called her a cooperative participant.

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

Safeguard No. 2 was scrapped in 2012 when the Review Committee stopped questioning doctors who said their euthanasia patients experienced unbearable suffering without a prospect of improvement. Responding to objections, the committee replied, Who are we to question the doctors? Professionals say it is already difficult to effectively judge unbearable suffering with advanced dementia, and nearly impossible without a therapeutic relationship with the patient.

Safeguard No. 3 was summarily discarded when doctors began to allow patients to reject any available alternatives and still qualify for euthanasia.

Chabot points out that the use of nice-sounding euphemisms had been an effective tool to introduce euthanasia in the Netherlands. He compares the process to how the first abortion law was introduced by saying a woman had to be in an emergency situation to get one. It didnt take long before every woman got a requested abortion if she rejected any other solution. Self-determination around the end of life is for many people as important as in the context of abortion, Chabot observed.

Chabots red flags should be an obvious concern for Americans. He writes, One can easily predict that all of this could cause a skyrocketing increase in the number of euthanasia cases and attributes it to the financial dismantling of care.

We have experienced a similar dismantling in the US, particularly in the wake of Obamacare.

Within the jungle of healthcare, insurance companies are at the top of the food chain. In the midst of the jungle, patients struggle to get through the thick vegetation of obstacles planted by insurance providers, when its the patients who should be the priority in the healthcare process.

Individuals living in states that have passed physician assisted suicide laws are most vulnerable. Insurance companies have rejected patients needs for expensive life-saving treatment, while offering to cover the cost of toxic drugs to end their lives.

Learn how to protect yourself with free end-of-life resources.

In the Netherlands, End of Life Clinic Foundation is the Planned Parenthood of the euthanasia industry. They kill patients who have been turned down by their own doctors, many of them suffering from dementia. By 2016 they performed 75 percent of all euthanasia cases involving chronic psychiatric patients. The foundation views euthanasia as virtuous labor. This sounds eerily familiar to Planned Parenthoods Care. No matter what.

The evolution of euthanasia in the Netherlands has caused Chabot to ask, What happens to doctors for whom a deadly injection becomes a monthly routine?

In summary, Chabot asks another question, Where did the euthanasia law go off the tracks? He then provides a clear cut, three-part answer.

1) When the existence of a treatment relationship was no longer required.

2) When patients with dementia were no longer required to make a definitive verbal request.

3) And particularly when the Review Committee concealed the fact that incapacitated people were being surreptitiously killed.

The former full-throated euthanasia activist doesnt see how they can get the genie back into the bottle. But, he says, It would mean a lot if wed acknowledge hes out.

America beware. It didnt take the Netherlands long to advance to their extreme euthanasia policies.

We are already quick on their heels.

Nursing Times magazine reports one in four nurses admits to injecting terminal patients with drugs to speed their dying. Two-thirds want to legalize euthanasia.

The Oregon State Senate recently approved amending their advance directive to in some cases allow withholding food and water from patients with dementia and mental illness against their will. The insurance industry was a chief advocate.

Charles D. Blanke, MD, participates in Oregons physician assisted suicide program. Yet he is surprised by how few of his colleagues (5 percent), first refer patients to psychiatrists. Depression often disqualifies an individual from receiving the lethal drugs.

He is also concerned only 17 percent of these physicians are present during an assisted suicide. Blanke offers himself to all of his patients and 100 percent of them have said yes.

Evidence shows that like abortion, the patient isnt the top priority during the killing process. The question is, can America learn from our friends across the pond before its too late?

LifeNews.com Note: Bradley Mattes is the executive director of Life Issues Institute.

See the original post:

He Was Considered the Patron Saint of Euthanasia. Now He's Having Second Thoughts - LifeNews.com