Category Archives: Euthanasia

The euthanasia movement fear mongers its agendaas a means of preventing an agonizing death in pain that cannot be controlled. Its all a false pitch. Thats not why its actually done.

Rather, existential anguish drives people to seek doctor-administered or prescribed termination.That has been experience in Oregon. Now too, Canada. From a study published in theNew England Journal of Medicine;

Those who received MAiD[medical aid in dying] tended to be white and relatively affluent and indicated that loss of autonomy was the primary reason for their request.

Other common reasons included the wish to avoid burdening others or losing dignity and the intolerability of not being able to enjoy ones life.

Few patients cited inadequate control of pain or other symptoms.

These are important issues that need to be addressed through vigorous suicide prevention and other mental health interventions.

But they are not provided. Instead, the desire to die for fear of being a burden or losing autonomy is validated withthe lethal jab or the poison pills. And then, that type of death is pushed toward normalization.

Not providing vigorous interventions for existential anguish islike depriving a cancer patientof morphine, and then helping her diebecause she is in so much pain.

Follow this link:

Euthanasia Not About Ending Uncontrollable Pain - National Review

Last year a good friend of mine had a terminal illness and was rapidly deteriorating in capacity ("Councillor's plea to MPs" Don't rob my dad of choice", May 29). An elderly and well-educated woman, she foresaw a horrid and incapacitated future for herself, and a huge burden on her family. She chose to attempt suicide in a place remote from her home so as not to implicate her family.

The outcome was that she died later in hospital with a large amount of police time expended on her "case". This raises a number of issues: she did not have access to a suitable method of suicide, she was deprived in her last waking hours of the comfort of her family and a lot of expensive police time was wasted.

This is all because our NSW Parliament is dominated by people who claim that euthanasia is a matter of conscience. No, it is a matter of religious indoctrination. If our MPs actually had consciences they would pass the bill for assisted dying, now before the house. This should be a medical matter not a police one.

Jan Aitkin Balmain

I applaud Linda Scott's public support for a change in the law to support her father's right to a dignified death in a manner and time he chooses instead of ending in chaotic, miserable, meaningless and unnecessary suffering.There are strong arguments in both morality and international law to support her position.

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held that the rights to life, liberty and security of the person, which are entrenched in the Canadian constitution, require that people with a grievous and irremediable medical condition who are experiencing intolerable suffering should, with stringent safeguards, be able to choose to die with dignity and be given medical assistance to do so.

These rights are not specifically in the Australian constitution, but they are found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is viewed as an expression of fundamental values shared by Australia with all other members of the international community. Australia voted in favour of the Universal Declaration at the UN in 1948.

I would urge the lawmakers in NSW to consider the upcoming legislative proposals on assisted dying as reflective of fundamental human rights.

Patricia Loughlan Glebe

Compassion for the situations of Dr Scott and others like him is a compelling argument for his plea to have the option of assisted dying. Not to grant this condemns any of us who may face a similar situation or have witnessed a dreadful death to bear all the associated grief and costs involved. Surely it's a question of having the right to choose a peaceful death rather than one by ordeal.

Vicky Marquis Glebe

Tony Walker writes that Israel's defensive war in 1967 didn't entitle it to permanently occupy the territory captured ("The Six Day War has endured for 50 years", May 29) . In fact, Israel immediately offered to return most of the territory in return for peace, but the Arab League responded with its infamous "three no's" no recognition, no negotiation, no peace. UN Security Council 242 required Israel to withdraw from "territories occupied", not all the territories occupied, in exchange for peace.

When Egypt agreed to peace, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai, more land than the rest of Israel and the territories combined. Sadly, the Palestinians walked away from what were generally regarded as generous deals in 2000/01 (followed by mass terrorism) and in 2008, and when Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, it received thousands of rockets for its trouble.

If the Palestinians genuinely accept Israel's right to exist, all other issues, including the settlements (which, as even the Palestinians admit, take up less than two per cent of the West Bank) can be resolved.

Danny Samuels Malvern (Vic)

Tony Walker asserts that Israel trebled the size of its territory after the 1967 war. Nowhere does he mention the not insignificant fact that Israel subsequently returned the Sinai Desert and Gaza Strip which together formed, overwhelmingly, the greatest part of the captured territory, and it did so at its own peril.

Michael Jaku Double Bay

I agree with George Williams that the Referendum Council must settle on a model for Aboriginal recognition that is capable of winning broad support. The secret to success is to keep any referendum question simple ("Uluru statement offers up different set of priorities", May 29). Malcolm Turnbull's republic referendum failed because it should have asked one simple question: Do you support a new law for an Australian republic, yes or no? Turnbull has learnt his lesson. As Prime Minister, he suggested one simple question for the proposed same-sex marriage plebiscite: Do you support a new law for same-sex marriage, yes or no? Now that the Uluru statement has charted a different course to the one previously identified in the recognition discussions, why not proceed with a referendum question that has the best chance of success: Do you support a new law for an agreement with Australia's Indigenous people, yes or no?

Peter Breen Byron Bay

Phil Johnson (Letters, May 29) is mistaken. Many countries have a treaty with indigenous people. As George Williams stated in his 2013 article, the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand have such treaties ("Treaty long overdue," November 12, 2013). Australia is the only Commonwealth nation that does not have a treaty with its Indigenous peoples. It is about time the current situation was changed. However, the typical weak-kneed response by the Prime Minister to the Uluru conference proposal for a treaty makes its adoption unlikely in the near future.

Brian Neligan Canada Bay

Neither the government nor the opposition has so far proposed that which the Keep NSW Safe Alliance seeks, namely, a criminal law that targets intentional and reckless promotion of violence against minorities ("'We are all at risk': community leader in push to amend race hate laws", May 29). The new law would not restrict robust public debate. It is focused on threats of violence, something that our society abhors. No one should be free to promote violence against people on the basis of their race or religion or sexual identity.

David Knoll Coogee

Why is it that any mention of tightening up race hate laws always ends up with those least likely to be victims of racism trotting out that old furphy of our "freedom of speech" being threatened?

Con Vaitsas Ashbury

Liberal MP Damien Tudehope thinks that cracking down on hate speech is an attack on free speech. I wonder if he thinks that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema is free speech?

Dave Horsfall North Gosford

At UNSW we are investing in enhancing teaching and the student experience, overhauling our promotion guidelines to ensure that we promote more academics on the basis of their teaching. Gittins is behind the times if he is unaware that teaching and student satisfaction is increasingly measurable and academics are accordingly devoting more of their efforts to ensuring they deliver excellent teaching.

There is a world of innovation, invention and discovery out there. Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge are at the top because they make huge contributions. Australia's top universities are not far behind. We should applaud the fact that Australia is a player on the world stage and consider how and whether we want to make our country stronger.

I ask Gittins to do the thought experiment. Does cutting investment in knowledge make us better or worse?

Professor Merlin Crossley deputy vice-chancellor education, University of New South Wales, Sydney

The reason why Alan Joyce is praised and Margaret Court "pilloried" for their respective views on same-sex marriage, Ken Farrington (Letters, May 29), could be that Joyce is promoting equality while Court is promoting continued discrimination, and perhaps the large majority in favour of change appreciate the difference. Similarly, I suggest to Ivor Davies (Letters, May 29) that speaking out against same-sex marriage is, contrary to his assertion, homophobic, and is clearly making a discriminatory statement against homosexuals.

Alynn Pratt Killara

My father fled 1950s communist Hungary after he was branded a "reactionary". The brand "reactionary" along with "enemy of the people" was the regime's favourite tool for condemning someone who spoke their mind without fear. It's interesting that proponents of same-sex marriage (Letters, May 29) resort to the language of totalitarian regimes when trying to suppress opposing views. I hope Margaret Court won't have to flee intolerance in this country.

Andras Hidas Arcadia

The claim the Sydenham to Bankstown rail privatisation project will "upgrade 11 stations along the 13.5km rail line" needs to be rebutted on two counts ("Battle brews over 'unsafe' $20b train station plan", May 29). First, existing stations will need to be significantly modified. This will not be an upgrading but heritage destruction.

Second, a number of these stations, such as Marrickville, Sydenham and Belmore, have recently been upgraded. Great attention was paid to the heritage of these stations. The destructive requirements of the proposed Metro will undo much of this work.

The Sydenham to Bankstown line is a functional part of Sydney's rail network. Cannibalising and privatising it is a missed opportunity to provide rail services elsewhere.

Peter Olive Marrickville

While every death caused by a preventable fall in a nursing home is an individual tragedy we must also take care not to kill our elders with kindness, by wrapping them in cotton wool ("Residents fall victim to preventable deaths", May 29).

We watched our already frail but still active father lose physical strength, and interest in life, as he sat in his chair, gently persuaded against any effort to stand or walk unassisted. The staff in the nursing home were wonderful they would do anything for him except let him do things for himself.

Bureaucracy run rampant is largely at fault here. Every fall in a nursing home requires reams of paperwork to be completed as well as the possibility of fielding complaints from grieving families.

No wonder managers and staff are cautious in the face of this intractable dilemma. Allowing residents to remain active means risk of falls but confining them to a life wrapped in cotton wool is also deadly. We need to develop strategies to manage these conflicting issues of care.

Without challenge and activity, life becomes a living death.

Jennifer Killen St Peters

Is the coverage of the Schapelle Corby "story" absurdly over the top (Letters, May 29)? That question can easily be answered by pondering whether the coverage would be the same had the protagonist been a young Indigenous man from the far west, or a tough-as-nails, obese 60-year-old grandmother.Martyn Yeomans Turramurra

Corby was convicted on May 27, 2005 with importing to Indonesia 4.2 kilograms of marijuana. This is now reported as either 4.1kg or 4kg. What happened to the rest? I suspect the media smoked it. John Simpson Tapitallee

There is no letter published in the Herald on this year's Sydney Writers' Festival. Is it because the letter writers who attended are now busy beavering away at their hoped-for publishing success? Everyone thinks they've got a book inside them. Reality is, writing is an art. A good writer can flog a dead horse to make it pull a load; a bad one overloads. Hendry Wan Alexandria

Taronga Zoo's baby elephant is all wobbly legs and tentative early missteps, its big feet ending up in unintended places much to the concern of its minders ("Extra large delivery for Taronga Zoo", May 29). Can I suggest Taronga name the new arrival Donald Trumpet?

Stephen Driscoll Castle Hill

Read more:

Euthanasia a medical matter, not a police issue - The Sydney Morning Herald

A total of 18 people in Luxembourg were euthanised between 2015 and 2016, explains a new report issued by the Commission for Control and Evaluation, regarding the law on euthanasia and assisted suicide in the Grand Duchy.

The statistics show that a total of 12 men and six women were euthanised during this period, a slight increase of the previous two years where 15 people were recorded.

Since the euthanasia law came into force in 2009, 52 patients in Luxembourg received assisted suicide treatment. For the latest report, the majority of those patients were over the age of 60 and 16 of them suffered from cancer.

Dr Carlo Bock, President of the Commission, stated that "euthanasia is complementary to palliative care" and that "no major abuses or difficulties have been observed in Luxembourg."

Euthanasia in the Grand Duchy has been legal since 2009. There are strict conditions that must be met for it to be practised. In particular, the patient must be conscious at the time of the request and be in a medical situation without any cure and without the prospect of improvement.

Get the latest news by signing up to our newsletter, following us on Facebook or Twitter.

Continue reading here:

Two-year period: Slight rise in euthanasia cases for Luxembourg - Luxemburger Wort - English Edition

Posted May 26, 2017 20:52:34

Before New South Wales considers passing a euthanasia legislation, there needs to be an improvement in palliative care, says one expert.

National Palliative Care week wrapped up today and specialists say improved palliative care would allow more Australians to die at home, rather than in a hospital.

Dr Megan Best, a palliative care doctor and postgraduate researcher at the University of Sydney, said improving the availability of palliative care should be prioritised.

"Before we can even consider euthanasia or physician assisted suicide legislation," she said.

She said while polling by pro-euthanasia groups such as Dying with Dignity have claimed popular support for assisted suicide, support was extremely low amongst palliative care patients who were close to death.

"Most patients at the end of life want more time, not less," Dr Best said.

But Dr Best said funding for palliative care which aims to improve the quality of life of patients with terminal illness was inadequate.

She said it was particularly difficult to access in regional areas.

Dr Best said more patients should see specialists when dealing with particular problems that other doctors might find difficult to control.

"A pain specialist is someone in a pain clinic or a palliative care specialist," she said.

Paul van Wensveen said he would always remember the day he realised just how much pain his dying father Peter van Wensveen was enduring.

"He called me and said, 'I just want to watch the grand final, and then go.'"

Knowing he had only a short time left to live, Peter was persuaded by a friend working in a palliative care facility to seek help.

Pain management experts, including doctors and nurses, were able to substantially reduce the pain in his cancer-ravaged body.

And that gave him time to say good bye to his son and the rest of his family.

"In his case, he got an extra two months of his life, we had no regrets," Mr van Wensveen said.

But he acknowledged that not everyone who entered a palliative care facility would have the same experience.

Anne Gabrielides suffers from Motor Neuron Disease and along with her husband Paul Gabrielides, has been a passionate advocate for the draft bill to legalise euthanasia.

Mr Gabrielides said his wife, who has lost her speech and has become increasingly reliant on others, has been given palliative care.

"It's what allows her to still be able to work one day a week," he said.

"Palliative care for us is when we have more therapists than we ought to have everybody's helping Anne.

"We're seeing physios, doctors, who are all looking for ways to reduce her pain.

"To us that is palliative care. We will see a palliative care doctor when she is in her dying days but not before.

"Until then, she wants to live."

Mr Gabrielides and his wife said even if palliative care could reduce pain, that was not the reason they would turn to euthanasia.

"For Anne, it is the total dependence on machines and others that means she may one day want to access euthanasia," he said.

Topics: euthanasia, community-and-society, health, pain, death, suicide, australia

The rest is here:

Palliative care needs to be improved before euthanasia can be considered, doctor says - ABC Online

While support appears to be growing for euthanasia in several countries, many legislatures that remain strongly opposed to proposal. Two euthanasia bills were defeated this week -- one in the US state of Maine and the other in the Australian state of Tasmania.

The debate in Maine was fierce, with surprisingly strong support coming from Republican representatives in the parliament.

The bill was sponsored by Republican Senator Roger Katz of Augusta, who has been a longstanding proponent of state-sanctioned assisted dying. People have the right to make medical decisions for themselves and also have the right to refuse treatment, Katz told reporters.

Yet the majority of the House disagreed, with the bill voted down 85-61. My conscience tells me that this is the wrong direction for a variety of reasons, said Democrat Representative Gay Grant, who strongly opposes euthanasia. This is not a partisan issue. It is a human issue.

Opposition was even stronger in the Tasmanian state of Australia, where the Lower House voted 16-8 against the bill. Many were concerned that the bill was too broad, and would put vulnerable social groups at risk. "I am concerned about the nature of assisted dying being available to those with a non-terminal illness and those of a young age, said Premier Will Hodgman, who voted against the bill.

Wesley Smith sees recently defeated euthanasia bills as a clear sign of ongoing resistance to the idea of euthanasia: We have been told over many years that assisted suicide is unstoppable, an idea for which the time has come. Baloney.

Read the original here:

Euthanasia bills sink in Tasmania and Maine - BioEdge

New York Times

At His Own Wake, Celebrating Life and the Gift of Death New York Times A month before the new law came into effect, she traveled to the Netherlands for a conference on euthanasia. Birth and death, deliveries in and out I find it very transferable, she explained one morning as she walked her small white poodle, Benji ...

Read the original post:

At His Own Wake, Celebrating Life and the Gift of Death - New York Times

Had Theresa May not on Monday summarily abandoned her manifesto threat to raid the savings of those who end up senile in care homes, I had planned to defend the idea here in terms that might have added to her woes. Ill do so regardless. The so-called dementia tax would, over time, have become a euthanasia bonus. And that would be a good thing.

As I argued on this page two weeks ago, morality is the father of religion, and not the other way around. Secular morality can be largely explained by social Darwinism. For a society to prosper it requires an ethical framework that boosts, rather than encumbers, the tribes chances of survival; this explains previous or current taboos on (for example) homosexuality, suicide, incest or abortion, as well as ethical premiums placed on marital fidelity, family values and civic responsibility, and the virtues of heroism in battle. Religious faiths latch on to these essentially secular values and clothe them in the garments of piety; and because in so doing such ideas are invested with divine authority, the church (or mosque, or synagogue) often gets stuck with rules that have become harmful, dragging its feet as secular morality moves on.

A difficulty, however, that both religious and secular morality share arises from what genetic science calls spandrels (a term for small, circular architectural features, often decorated, whose insertion arises from the fact that if you support a platform upon an arch, you end up with curved/triangular spaces to the left and right of the top of the arch). Spandrels may be incidental to the structural engineering but have come along for the ride.

Thou shalt not kill has landed society with some awkward spandrels. The injunction is obviously in a societys interests: murder is socially harmful. But what happens if, for its own defence, a society has to engage in war? Morality, both secular and religious, has over the millennia learned to shrug, and explain that thou shalt not kill doesnt always mean that thou shalt not kill. Indeed, sometimes thou shalt. But its awkward.

Awkward, too, in the case of lives that have become a great burden on society. We have on the whole declined to make any other big exceptions to the commandment (beyond war) because the question of who decides is so difficult, and the burden has always been bearable. In the case of those whose advanced senility means they can bring neither happiness nor usefulness, even to themselves, the burden has been limited by the fact that nature has tended to end these lives before too long anyway. As the kindly but candid senior nurse, surveying the pitiful ranks of helpless, hopeless, senile old ladies in her care, once put it to me on my Christmas visit (as MP) to a rural nursing home in the Peak District: In the old days, a good Derbyshire winter would have cut through this lot like a knife through butter.

That is no longer the case. We have conquered nature at least to the degree that we can prolong life for decades even if it is not an active, wholly sentient life. The burden this is placing on our economy, on family life, on state spending, and on our health service, is growing fast and relentlessly.

Will our societys innate Darwinian will-to-survive begin its work of slow, subliminal influence over our moral sensibilities, then? Will social attitudes shift, so that while still sharp, active and fit, we feel a dawning obligation to make provision for our own deaths when the burden on family and friends becomes intolerable? Will the medical profession move more decisively in the direction of helping to expedite this? The answer to these questions is that something is delaying this natural evolution of secular morality. In many cases, much (sometimes all) of the financial cost is not falling upon the individuals with family ties to those suffering from senile dementia. To put into words what I mean, I have been trying to find a way that did not sound brutal and perhaps flippant, but the truth is brutal. Where the state is largely or wholly responsible for the care and cost of an elderly persons dementia, no individual has an overwhelming interest in their timely passing. If the state pays for care often for a decade or more and upon death the surviving family inherit a legacy that is undiminished by the huge cost of that care, what is it to them that the life has been unnaturally prolonged?

Nobody wants to think about, let alone decide, how long someone they have loved should live when their life has become meaningless. When the cost of life falls upon the general taxpayer, why argue against life? When I am old, and if I then suffer from dementia, it would be painful (I hope) for my (younger) partner to put into train anything that allowed, or helped, my life to end. The easiest thing for him to do will be to put me in a nursing home, visit me dutifully occasionally, and leave the taxpayer to pay the bill with all my estate headed safely his way when I go. If a tough and harrowing decision can be avoided by sending the bill to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Im afraid thats where the bill will go.

Please understand that Im not suggesting that if after 8 June the cost of dementia care fell heavily upon millions more fellow citizens, millions more would wake up on 9 June and declare they no longer believed human life was sacred. Im saying that as the bills for dementia care thudded more heavily upon the doormats of those who hope to inherit, then very, very gradually, probably over generations, the argument for letting or helping people die when their lives had emptied would begin to find more favour.

Pooling the cost is retarding that process, but not reducing the cost. This manifesto was a chance to bring that cost home to individuals. Im sorry it will now be missed.

See the rest here:

A dementia tax would eventually become a euthanasia bonus - Spectator.co.uk

Updated May 24, 2017 08:14:38

It's a controversial issue which has been rejected by the Tasmanian Parliament twice in the past decade, but supporters of euthanasia are hopeful MPs are on the verge of approving strengthened legislation.

The "Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill" co-sponsored by Labor's Lara Giddings and Greens leader Cassy O'Connor, which would allow people to voluntarily end their lives using a lethal drug, is set to be debated on Wednesday.

To qualify you must be a Tasmanian adult who is competent to make the decision and have an eligible medical condition.

It would require diagnosis by a specialist and must be signed off by two independent doctors.

Hobart man Stan Goodman said his son would have loved the right to have an assisted death.

Matthew Kent-Goodman was a 55-year old lawyer who had an aggressive form of multiple sclerosis and could no longer bear his suffering, taking his own life three months ago.

"Obviously I'm devastated and sorry that he's gone but on the same circumstances I couldn't bare to see the pain he was in and the absolute agony he was living because that's not living," he said.

"He was a very proud person who'd been a good athlete ... and so he just found this very humiliating."

In the lead up to his death, Mr Kent-Goodman recorded his own eulogy his desire to die was no secret.

"He was proud of his decision he told everyone that this is what he wanted, he wasn't coerced in any way shape or form," his father said.

"If he could have had anything to say he would have been there in Parliament banging on the door saying pass the legislation."

Mr Goodman said his son was very sad he could not have friends and family around him at the end.

"It just would have been a friendly environment to say goodbye, instead he had to do it in a clandestine manner and that's not what I wanted for my son," he said.

Helen Kershaw's grandmother, Sheila, made a similar decision seven years ago, while her other grandmother went down the path of palliative care.

"My grandmother was starting to suffocate and just looking into her eyes and seeing her be forced to go through that when she wanted it to end, I completely understood why my other grandmother [Sheila] would take her own life," she said.

Supporters of euthanasia insist the legislation has been strengthened since it was last rejected from Parliament in 2013.

Dying with Dignity Tasmania president Margaret Sing said the definition around an "eligible" medical condition was a lot clearer.

"The eligible medical condition makes it very clear that it's for people in the advanced stages of a serious, incurable and irreversible condition with no chance of improvement or recovery, and to have suffering that's intolerable that's not able to be resolved by palliative care," she said.

She said it remained a last resort option.

"It's not about people choosing to die but about people choosing to end their suffering in a way which gives them a death that they find peaceful and dignified."

The federal branch of the Australian Medical Association (AMA) remained opposed to euthanasia and called the Tasmanian legislation problematic.

Spokesman Dr Chris Moy said the definition around "medical condition" was still too vague and this could be the thin edge of the wedge.

"It says nothing about terminal illnesses or prognosis and even though a specialist has to be involved in the diagnosis," he said.

"What if someone has just got diabetes that is severe but really isn't life threatening, or potentially even someone with severe acne for example getting caught up in this legislation."

He said palliative care remained the AMA's preferred option.

"We understand people are scared and we do understand the need for control and some certainty but we do have a strong message that the important thing in all of this is to really get palliative care right, to get enough resources to provide good palliative care."

The Catholic Church is strongly opposed to the legislation.

Tasmania's Archbishop Julian Porteous is worried about the message it could send to vulnerable people such as the elderly or disabled.

"It could cause them to think 'I'm a nuisance' and that's the last thing you want, we want to show them respect, we want them to have that sense of their dignity and worth," he said.

The Archbishop said people experiencing suffering needed to be reassured by the community.

"People who go through depression or feel burdened with sickness and suffering, there can be this whole sense of my life is not worth living," he said.

"We want to transmit the exact opposite message, we want to say, 'no you are valuable, every human life has value'."

Despite assurances the bill been strengthened, the Archbishop said before long there would be calls to expand it.

"Before long someone who is ineligible will say 'well why can't I have this?'" he said.

"Once you bring in the principle that you can assist a person in their dying it becomes almost inevitable that it will expand and we've seen this overseas, even now to the stage of children in some places."

In 2013, all 10 Liberal MPs in the Lower House voted against the bill, as did three Labor members who have since retired or been ousted from Parliament.

It is understood Labor's Madeline Ogilvie and David Llewellyn will vote against the new bill, but supporters are hoping several moderate Liberals will be convinced.

Premier Will Hodgman said he was still undecided, while Health Minister Michael Ferguson said he would be voting against.

Similar legislation is currently being prepared by the Labor government in Victoria, while NSW released a draft bill last week.

Topics: euthanasia, state-parliament, tas, launceston-7250, hobart-7000

First posted May 23, 2017 16:10:11

Read the original post:

Euthanasia debate: Family members argue for Tasmania's Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill - ABC Online

NewsBusters (blog)

Euthanasia Drama Finale: Not Letting People Die Is a 'Form of Torture' NewsBusters (blog) Mary responds with the classic pro-euthanasia line, What was hard was watching people suffer. Nothing worse than an undignified death. However, she does admit doubt about her line of work as she fears being sent to jail. She confesses, But I don't know.

Excerpt from:

Euthanasia Drama Finale: Not Letting People Die Is a 'Form of Torture' - NewsBusters (blog)

Catholic World News

May 23, 2017

The Catholic bishops of Belgium have issued a statement rejecting the policy proposed by the Brothers of Charity, who have said that they will allow doctors to euthanize patients in the hospitals they administer.

We cannot accept that euthanasia could be practiced on psychiatric patients who are not in a terminal condition, the bishops said.

The bishops acknowledged that some patients may undergo immense suffering, but they insisted that precisely in this situation we must remain close to him and not abandon him. They stressed the importance of palliative care.

In their statement the bishops professed their deep esteem for health-care professionals treating patients with psychiatric problems. The Brothers of Charity run hospitals caring for about 5,000 patients in Belgium.

References:

Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Read the rest here:

Belgian bishops reject hospitals' decision to allow euthanasia - Catholic Culture