Category Archives: Euthanasia

Anyone looking at the experience in Canada since euthanasia and assisted suicide laws came into force last year, should be struck by the moves to extend the law so soon after they had been passed. After all, when you look to Belgium and Holland and even Oregon USA, the moves to expand their laws and/or the application of their laws has taken some time to develop.

There are many reasons why the European and Oregon situations have taken time to see the various incremental legal and effective interpretational changes gather momentum. In Belgium and Holland the statutes were written in very broad terms relating to unbearable and irretrievable suffering. While the understanding at the time of their debates focussed on euthanasia as a last resort option for people in the last stages of a terminal illness, the wording never restricted application in that way.

In the last five years and more there has been a continual pushing at the edges of the community understanding of the breadth of the law. Euthanasia for tinnitus, for blindness, for psychological suffering, for the accrual of minor complaints associated with old age, for fear of entering a nursing home all unthinkable in the beginning. Add to that the 2013 statute amendment to include children in Belgium and the current discussion in Holland in respect to assisted suicide for people over 70 years of age who are simply tired of life, and one can legitimately wonder where it will all stop.

As Dutch journalist, Gerbert van Loenen once observed:

Making euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide legal started a development we did not foresee. The old limit thou shalt not kill was abandoned, a new limit is yet to be found.

Canada seems bent on catching up with the Benelux countries at some pace.

In Victoria, Australia, there also seems to be something of a rush.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

A Ministerial Advisory Panel charged with the role of consulting about how to make assisted suicide safe, is due to provide an interim report to Premier Daniel Andrews any day now. The final report is due in July and legislation is slated for the second half of this year.

The Panels reference was the Legal and Social Issues Committee of the Victorian Parliament report in the matter of the Inquiry into End of Life Choices that was finalised in mid-2016.

Recommendation 49 of that report called upon the Victorian Parliament to legislate assisted suicide for people, suffering from a serious and incurable condition which is causing enduring and unbearable suffering and that these persons must be at the end of life (final weeks or months of life).

So, not necessarily but most likely a terminal illness but still only for those at the very end or, as the Dutch talked about: a last resort option.

Politically this makes sense. The game, if I can call it that, is to gain 50% plus one support in the two chambers of parliament. The logic is, of course, that it is the first hurdle that is the hardest. Better to get something on the statute books rather than risking yet another loss from trying for too much.

In September last year, Victorian Health Minister, Jill Hennessy warned pro-euthanasia advocates not to be too greedy:

Politicians need to ask themselves: is it about being pure or is it about saying lets get the best result we can?

This warning did not stop Victorian euthanasia supporter, Dr Rodney Syme from entering the debate immediately arguing for an expansion of eligibility to include neurological failure, such as multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease and Parkinsons disease, who have progressive diseases, and those with profound stroke or high quadriplegia who have a static condition, may have an ill-defined trajectory to death, and while suffering unbearably, may be discriminated against by narrow legislation. It is precisely the same sort of argument that could (and will) be made for a later amendment if Syme does not get his way. Think about that.

Indeed, everyone knows that later extension is a possibility via an amendment bill. Euthanasia for children was originally considered for the first Belgian debate. Trudo Lemmens relates that, children were explicitly excluded from the ambit of the original law because it was deemed so controversial that including it may have threatened approval of the Euthanasia Bill.

Back in Victoria, there have been a few leaks about the possible direction the Panels report might take. One article pointed to a plan not to provide effective conscience protections for doctors.

Today we are told that the Panel will recommend a prognisis-based qualifier:

But the advisory panel wants to extend the timeline and the government is believed to be considering three options: 24 months, 12 months or six months.

It is mere speculation on my part, but it would seem that this kind of qualifier might be a compromise position between the Parliamentary Inquirys recommendation and the agitation of the likes of Syme. Either way, it is much broader than the original at the end of life (final weeks or months of life).

This leaves many questions unanswered: Does this call into question the judgement of the members of the Parliamentary Committee? Is it now considered that the Victorian public are open to this kind of extension where those who submitted to the Parliamentary Inquiry were clearly not? Will the members of the Parliamentary Committee rebuke the Panel for their extension?

Lack of answers aside, the idea of incremental extension is now out in the open for all to see. No Victorian MP can ignore it. They now need to question, not whether the model presented satisfies their judgement on a set of limits, but that their vote in support of any framework will most certainly provide precursory endorsement and impetus to later extension.

Dutch Health Minister, Edith Schippers, speaking enthusiastically about euthanasia recently, confirmed: One thing is certain: on euthanasia and assisted suicide, we will never be finished.

The Panels interim report is likely to be made public in the next few weeks.

LifeNews Note: Based in Australia, Paul Russell is a leading campaigner against euthanasia.

Read more:

Australia Pushes Euthanasia Even Before Legalizing It - LifeNews.com

The Brothers of Charity are to permit euthanasia in their psychiatric care centres

A group of psychiatric care centres run by a Catholic religious order in Belgium has announced it will permit doctors to undertake the euthanasia of non-terminal mentally ill patients on its premises.

In a nine-page document, the Brothers of Charity Group stated that it would allow doctors to perform euthanasia in any of its 15 centres, which provide care to more than 5,000 patients a year, subject to carefully stipulated criteria.

Brother Ren Stockman, the superior general, has distanced himself from the decision of the groups largely lay board of directors, however, and has told Belgian media that the policy was a tragedy.

We cannot accept that euthanasia is carried out within the walls of our institutions, said Brother Stockman, a specialist in psychiatric care, in an April 27 interview with De Morgen newspaper in Brussels.

He told the newspaper that he intended to raise the matter with Catholic authorities in Rome and with the Belgian bishops.

Carine Brochier, a Catholic bioethicist from Brussels, told Catholic News Service that she was certain that political and financial pressure was exerted on the Brothers of Charity Group to allow euthanasia.

The groups new policy document, which was drafted in March, comes about a year after a court fined the St Augustine Catholic rest home in Diest, Belgium, for refusing to allow the euthanasia of a lung cancer patient on its premises.

The home was ordered to pay 6,000 euros after it prevented doctors from giving a lethal injection to Mariette Buntjens, 74, who instead was taken by ambulance to her private address to die in peaceful surroundings.

The pro-euthanasia movement is really happy about what is happening, said Brochier, adding that she believed internal pressures also influenced the decision.

The Brothers of Charity work with lay people. Those people think that euthanasia should be allowed in the premises, she said. Also, I guess some of the Brothers of Charity wanted the euthanasia to be permitted within the walls.

Ren Stockman is completely the opposite way, but the Brothers of Charity here in Belgium are very, very progressive, she said.

The new policy document harmonises the practices of the centres in the group with Belgian law on euthanasia.

It sought to balance the Catholic belief in the inviolability of innocent human life with duty of care under the law and with the demands of patient autonomy.

The group has promised to take requests for death seriously, and it expressed the opinion that a carefully guided euthanasia can prevent more violent forms of suicide.

The policy document has acknowledged the difficulties in providing euthanasia to psychiatric patients, noting that Belgian euthanasia law was primarily written for physical suffering in a terminal situation.

The suffering of psychiatric patients must therefore be considered hopeless, unbearable and untreatable if a request for euthanasia was to proceed, the policy document says, adding that requests must be voluntarily and repeatedly made by a competent adult for them to be legitimate.

After three doctors have assented to the patients request, the euthanasia can go ahead on the Brothers of Charity premises, the document concluded.

If the euthanasia procedure takes place in a facility of the Brothers of Charity, a preliminary review is necessary, it says. The reason is that, on the one hand, we want to respect the physicians therapeutic freedom, but on the other hand we want to go about euthanasia being performed in a facility of the Brothers of Charity with the utmost caution.

In the Flanders region of Belgium, the order is considered to be the most important provider of mental health care services. The order also runs schools, employing about 12,000 staff nationwide.

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

Raf De Rycke, chairman of the board of the Brothers of Charity Group, said in comments reported by De Morgen April 25 that the group was guided by three fundamental values in producing the policy: respect for the patients life, the autonomy of the patient and the relationship between the care provider and the patient.

The protection of life remains fundamental, said De Rycke. But we also want to respect the patients autonomy, even if he has the desire to live no longer. We do not approve of the [euthanasia] act as such, but respect the demand and see [permitting] it as a form of charity.

Brochier said she suspected the Belgian bishops were very embarrassed by the policy but suggested they shared some of the blame because, she said, they appeared to give up the fight against euthanasia, partly by failing to correct some priests and doctors when they have argued for the procedure while publicly purporting to be Catholic.

It is very difficult to hear a clear message about euthanasia, Brochier said. But it should be condemned very strongly, and doctors who perform euthanasia should have a clear message from the Church, from the pope, from the bishops, so that they can understand that they are killing somebody.

Palliative care is very good in Belgium. We dont need euthanasia, she added.

CNS repeatedly try to reach the Belgian bishops conference for comment.

Belgium legalised euthanasia in 2003, a year after the Netherlands became the first country since Nazi Germany to introduce the procedure.

Technically, euthanasia in Belgium remains an offence, with the law protecting doctors from prosecution only if they abide by carefully set criteria.

This initially included limiting euthanasia only to adults who were suffering unbearably and who were able to give their consent but, in 2014, the law was also extended to emancipated children.

Despite safeguards, critics have argued the law is interpreted so liberally that euthanasia is available on demand, with doctors also increasingly giving lethal injections to people who are disabled, demented or mentally ill.

Continue reading here:

Belgian Brothers to allow euthanasia for mentally ill patients ... - Catholic Herald Online

Submissions against euthanasia shatter assumptions

77% of submissions to Parliaments Health Select Committee are opposed to changing the law on assisted suicide and euthanasia, an analysis found.

The Voluntary Euthanasia Society touted that the Health Select Committee received a record 21,533 submissions on the issue, indicating intense public interest in a potential law change, says Rene Joubert, executive officer of Euthanasia-Free NZ. By their own logic, the results of this analysis demonstrate an overwhelming opposition to a law change.

When New Zealanders are given the opportunity to engage with the issue, as opposed to merely responding to a single poll question, most support the current legislation. This is certainly our experience when interacting with people all over the country.

The public are understandably concerned that the legalisation of assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia poses risks to vulnerable people, which is why advocates propose safeguards. However, these safeguards are unenforceable in practice.

Polls often elicit a knee-jerk reaction, especially when the questions are emotive or leading, such as referring to a painful condition. In reality nowadays, terminally ill Kiwis do not need to die in pain. A poll question about euthanasia for pain is inappropriate.

As the authors of the January 2017 NZMJ study admitted, the item in our study included the terms painful, incurable disease and request, which may have influenced participants to express increased support for euthanasia.

The Care Alliance analysed 21,277 submissions, excluding duplicates and a small number that could not be coded. An independent research company reviewed a sample of the coded submissions and concluded with at least 95% confidence that the overall classification percentages are accurate within no more than 0.4% variation.

The results of the full analysis shatter assumptions about public attitudes to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The assumption that the high number of submissions demonstrate overwhelming support for a law change:

The analysis found that 77.1 % of submissions (16,411) were opposed to a law change, 19.5 % (4,142) were in favour, and 3.4 % (724) were neutral or unclear on this issue.

The assumption that support of legalisation is secular and opposition to legalisation is based on religious beliefs:

63.6 % of submissions (13,539) oppose a law change and also make no reference to religion. Only 18.5% of submissions (3,934) support a law change and also make no reference to religion.

There are religiously motivated people on both sides of the debate. 14.8 % of submissions included religious arguments. The majority of these (13.5% of the total) oppose a law change, and 208 submissions (0.93% of the total) support a law change.

The assumption that submissions opposing a law change are mostly one-liners:

About 44% of submissions in opposition are between two lines and a page. Even if submissions of a certain length were to be discounted, the submissions opposing a law change would still outnumber those supporting a law change in other length categories.

The Health Select Committee conducted an investigation into ending ones life in New Zealand, in response to a petition by former MP Hon Maryan Street and 8,974 others in June 2015 requesting Parliament to investigate fully public attitudes towards the introduction of legislation which would permit medically-assisted dying in the event of a terminal illness or an irreversible condition which makes life unbearable.

After extensive media coverage about the investigation, especially during January 2016, the Committee processed 21,435 written submissions, a record number of unique submissions received on any issue to date. These, and subsequent supplementary submissions, are published on Parliaments website.

In August 2016 Dr Jane Silloway Smith analysed a random sample of these submissions and found that 78% were opposed to changing the law while 22% were in favour. The 16000voices.org.nz campaign was launched to highlight some submissions in video and written form.

ENDS

Scoop Media

Continue reading here:

Submissions against euthanasia shatter assumptions | Scoop News - Scoop.co.nz (press release)

MILAN, Italy (ChurchMilitant.com) - Italian prosecutors are ruling that Marco Cappato, an assisted suicide activist, did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights when he helped Fabiano Antoniani commit suicide in Switzerland in February.

Antoniani became a quadriplegic after a car accident in 2014 and had been seeking, since then, to be able to commit suicide. Cappato, a member of the Radical Party and an outspoken right-to-die activist, drove Antoniani to Switzerland in February where he self-administered a lethal dose of medication.

Twenty-four hours later, Cappato went to a police station in Milan, claiming he broke the law and turned himself in. Some critics suggest he was merely doing it to bring attention to his cause and that authorities had no interest in charging him with a crime.

Cappato told members of the press outside the police station, "If there will be an opportunity to defend before a judge what I've done, I can do it in the name of constitutional principles of freedom and fundamental responsibilities that are stronger than a penal code written in the Fascist era."

In Italian law, once a person is placed under investigation by authorities or in this case, turns himself in for a crime, prosecutors must examine the accusations to determine if charges are to be filed. Prosecutors concluded on May 2 that he did not violate Antoniani's "right to life," claiming assisted suicide doesn't violate the law "in the case of terminal illness or serious suffering, unbearable for the patient."

A judge must still make a final determination, and Cappato can still be charged according to article 580 of the Italian criminal code which directs, "Anyone who causes others to suicide or reinforces the others about suicide or in any way facilitates the execution, shall be punished, whether suicide occurs, by imprisonment from five to twelve years."

Switzerland, however, is not part of the European Union and assisted suicide is legal there. The situation is serving as a flashpoint to reignite the battle over whether assisted suicide should be legalized in Italy.

In April, the Italian House voted to allow a patient to refuse treatment under certain conditions, but it must still pass the Senate.

Cappato has accompanied other Italians to Switzerland for suicide. On April 19, he and Mina Welby, another right-to-die activist, assisted in the death of another Italian from Tuscany. They are both under investigation for that case as well. It's not know how the judgment of Milan's prosecutors will affect that case.

Have a news tip? Submit news to our tip line.

Like our work? Support us with a donation.

Go here to read the rest:

Italian Prosecutors Declare Euthanasia Activist Didn't Violate 'Right to Life' - Church Militant

Honourable Senators, I stand here today as but one voice in this Chamber.

My voice is not as loud or as strong as others in this House.

Yet behind me stand many, by the thousands, who wish their voices could be heard.

I am honoured to be speaking on their behalf.

And today, I hope you do not just hear my voice, but the sound of their voices as well.

These are the many people who weep that Canadas moral fabric is being destroyed: Who beg us not to underestimate the harm that will follow when our hitherto and dearly held values are being shredded.

These are the elderly and the vulnerable: Who have now been burdened with new fears about visiting their doctor or being admitted to the hospital.

I propose to you that if this legislation was for a clear moral good there would be no need for debate.

It would be resoundingly supported not only in these halls, but in the halls of our nation.

Yet we do not hear such a sound, fellow Senators.

We hear the sound of division, of anger, of disagreement, and of fear.

I do not know which is more alarming:

The fact that we are on the wrong road, or the fact that we do not recognize it and that so many are cheering.

A fundamental tenant is, Do not kill the innocent. Life is sacred.

Yet in considering this legislation we have dismissed so many safeguards that the innocent are certain to be killed.

Why we cannot see it, I do not know.

Ignoring the lessons of history we elevate the right of the individual over the good of society.

Canada has had its democratic values uprooted: While in theory, Parliament is Supreme, this has become blatantly false.

The Supreme Court has supplanted our elected Parliamentarians by foisting Judge-made law on Canadians.

And although Parliaments across the nation could invoke the notwithstanding clause to ensure that this decision receives its proper deliberation, they seem unprepared to do so.

Where did we go so wrong, and when will we admit that the Supreme Court has gone too far?

What will it take? On what will they rule next?

Is there no situation under which the parliaments of Canada would be prepared to exercise their right under the Charter and invoke the notwithstanding clause?

I, for one, am not holding my breath, and I believe we are wrong, my friends. This story does not end well.

My only hope is that more and more Canadians are beginning to realize that something is terribly wrong and are rejecting the benign-sounding Medical Assistance in Dying Bill C-14.

Regrettably, far too few parliamentarians are amongst them.

I cannot support this legislation.

I dont think this has been our finest hour: politics were ever-present. But may the gracious God who gave us life have mercy on us when He takes it in the end.

More:

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International News and ...

Editors Note: Healthy Paws is a column sponsored and written by the owners ofClarendon Animal Care, a full-service, general practice veterinary clinic and winner of a 2017 Arlington Chamber of Commerce Best Business Award. The clinic is located 3000 10th Street N., Suite B. and can be reached at 703-997-9776.

Perhaps not the Healthiest of Paws this week but the topic of Euthanasia and Saying Goodbye is not one to take lightly. Often letting a pet go is akin to having a family member die, which can affect everyone (other pets included) differently, and sometimes profoundly.

Making the Decision

This decision is never easy, and nor should it be. Our general thought is that if we wait until the decision to let our pet go becomes very easy we have likely waited too long and for the wrong reasons. When working through this decision, especially with chronic illnesses and geriatric patients, we do like to use a Quality of Life scoring sheet, and recommend multiple people close to the pet fill it out independently and see where everyone is on the same page and where theyre not.

This looks at hurt, hunger, hydration, hydration, hygiene, happiness, mobility and more good days than bad and is sometimes called the hhhhhhmm scale. These qualities of life are all scored 0-10 and added up. A score of greater than 35 indicates the pet has an acceptable quality of life to continue with pet hospice.

We always need to keep in mind that when addressing quality of life the most important factor is our pets quality of life, and that trumps how much we may miss them.

What is Euthanasia?

The word euthanasia itself is derived from Greek roots: eu well or good + thanatos death. And in veterinary medicine we tend to look at it as the intentional ending of a pets life to relieve pain and suffering.

The process of the euthanasia is going to be a little different between individual veterinarians and veterinary clinics. It may involve sedation, and/or placement of an intravenous catheter and by far most common method is with the overdose of a euthanasia solution that slows and then stops the heart. Depending on the circumstances around the euthanasia it may be performed at the veterinary clinic or in your home.

Coping with the Loss

Below are some excellent resources/hotlines/groups for coping with the loss of a beloved pet:

Bereavement Groups:

View original post here:

Healthy Paws: Euthanasia & Saying Goodbye - ARL now

ROME Euthanasia took center stage this month in Italian politics after a polarizing case of a blind and quadriplegic man who fled to neighboring Switzerland in order to receive assisted suicide, which is illegal in Italy.

Ending a life is always a defeat, said Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Academy for life. All of this must make us all sad, and also make us ask some questions.

Paglias remarks were discordant in an ocean of sympathy that swept over Italian politics and society concerning the decision by Fabiano Antoniani, 39, to end his life after almost three years of being confinedto his bed.

Fabiano Antoniani (Fabo) made a video on January 19 of last year begging the president of Italy, Sergio Mattarella, to help him in finding a way to die. The video made by the Luca Coscioni Association for the freedom of scientific research and voiced by Fabos girlfriend Valeria quickly became viral and spurred conversations over every Italian dinner table.

The video describes two Fabos. The first part shows a young and dynamic man who loves to travel, does motocross and livened the Italian night scene as a DJ. The second shows Fabo after his car accident on July 13, 2014, which broke his C3 and C4 vertebrae and left him blind and quadriplegic.

The video received no response from political representatives though it reawakened the debate surrounding the issue in the country.

According to Fabo, he did not give up immediately and after pursuing possible solutions at the hospital he even ventured to India in search of alternate medicines. None were successful and Fabo returned home desperate and incapable of imagining happiness in his life.

It was the blindness that got to him, he said in an interview on the Italian TV program Le Iene. He could not stand to live his life in the dark, a gasping Fabo told the reporter, as he lay surrounded by pictures of his old self, which he could no longer see.

Physician Angelo Mainini, heath director at the layMaddalena Grassi foundation, was in charge of preparing the rehabilitation plan for Fabo. We visited his home five day a week. He actively collaborated, he had a great desire to make it,Mainini told Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire.

Then something changed.

Fabo made up his mind that he was going to end his life by going to Switzerland where it is possible to receive assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide has been legal in Switzerland since 1942, although doctors can only prescribe drugs for the purpose they cant actively administer the drugs.

Over the years, suicide tourism has increased to the country, and Swiss organizations with names like Dignitas and Exit actively publicize their activities across Europe. Over a thousand people were killed through euthanasia in Switzerland in 2016, over twice the number from just five years before.

A 2014 study of legal assisted suicide in Switzerland published in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that assisted suicide was more likely in women than in men and those living alone compared with those living in households with others, the divorced compared with the married.

According to Italian law whomever helps a person visit a country for the purpose of euthanasiais guilty as an assistant to suicide, hence the video by Fabo to the Italian President asking for his intervention.

I value life based on quality, not quantity. I cant bare to live in pain anymore, Fabo told reporters after being asked if he was certain of his decision. I will go with a smile, I will go free.

On February 27, 2017, Marco Cappato, treasurer of the Luca Coscioni Association, wrote a tweet: Fabo died at 11:40. He chose to go following the laws of a country that is not his own.

Cappato had accompanied Fabo to Switzerland and been with him at the end when the quadriplegic used his mouth to press the button and inject the lethal drug. When Cappato returned he committed himself to the police and now risks spending between 5and 12 years in prison.

But the District attorneys office in Milan has asked to archive the suit against Cappato.

The Italian government is not particularly happy that its citizens bypass the law to perform illegal practices in neighboring countries. Cappato claims that as of 2015 up to 225 people have asked his association for advice on the matter of euthanasia. Of those, 117 went to Switzerland, though Cappato underlines that some decided to think more on the issue and returned to Italy.

The Church has been vocally opposed to this practice and has expressed preoccupation for its consequences. According to Italian law, it is obligatory to assist the dying. Palliative remedies exist precisely for this reason, said Cardinal Elio Sgreccia, President emeritus of the Pontifical Academy for Life in an interview with Italian newspaper La Repubblica.

They are based on the principle of healing, being assisted, and living with dignity.

The Milan DA office is taking the position, in a lengthy and overtly technical document, that Cappato only helped bring Fabo to Switzerland in order for him to exercise his right to die. The document cited the Englaro and Welby cases, which are the equivalent to the Terry Schiavo case in the United States.

Terri Schiavo was a Florida woman who suffered severe brain damage after suffering a heart attack in 1990. A long legal battle between her husband and the rest of her family was fought on whether or not her feeding tube could be removed. After the husband won in court, Schiavos feeding tube was removed, and she died in 2005.

Worried by the implications ofthe DAs position, Sgreccia insisted that though the law remains unclear and undefined, it does not open the door to practices that are essentially euthanasia.

The fact that it was allegedly Fabo himself who pressed the button for his lethal injection seemingly created a precedent allowing the Association and its members to ship desperate patients to Switzerland and return untouchable by the Italian law.

It is essentially euthanasia if one takes a drug in order to kill himself just as much as if one does not take a drug that may save him, Sgreccia insisted. There is an obligation to assist the dying. If this doesnt happen then the law is being bent.

The Catholic Church keeps its eye on the big picture and though tragedies such as the accident and death of Fabo occur, it believes the consequences of legalizing euthanasia or using loopholes such as in this case can be damaging to the weaker members of society.

As our society ages, there is a pull to save and not spend the necessary money for cures. All of this is unacceptable. If everything is based on saving money then we are little more than merchandise to be thrown away, Sgreccia said echoing Pope Francis.

In any case the request by the DAs office is an imposition that inserts itself in a controversy that has no reason to exist since it is not provided by the Italian law.

The Italian Parliament in recent months has been postponing the decision on whether to implement a biological will which would allow people to write down their intentions and wishes if they were to be inthe same situation as Fabo.

ButMainini disagrees with this proposal which he thinks would bring more damages than benefits. In the beginning many think that they want to die, but with time the opinion of 99 percent of them changes, as time goes on priorities change and, with the right support, they are able to appreciate what their new life can offer, Manini said.

If they are surrounded by people that they love and have events that they look forward to with joy, such as the birth of a nephew or the graduation of a child, even just being able to smile or move the head fulfills them entirely.

Read the original post:

Pontifical Academy for Life speaks up in polarizing euthanasia debate - Crux: Covering all things Catholic

04 May 2017 | by Catholic News Service New policy seeks to balance the Catholic belief in the inviolability of innocent human life with duty of care under the law

A group of psychiatric care centres run by a Catholic religious order in Belgium has announced it will permit doctors to undertake the euthanasia of "nonterminal" mentally ill patients on its premises.

In a nine-page document, the Brothers of Charity Group stated that it would allow doctors to perform euthanasia in any of its 15 centres, which provide care to more than 5,000 patients a year, subject to carefully stipulated criteria.

Brother Rene Stockman, the superior general, has distanced himself from the decision of the group's largely lay board of directors, however, and has told Belgian media that the policy was a tragedy.

"We cannot accept that euthanasia is carried out within the walls of our institutions," said Brother Stockman, a specialist in psychiatric care, in an April 27 interview with De Morgen newspaper in Brussels.

He told the newspaper that he intended to raise the matter with Catholic authorities in Rome and with the Belgian bishops.

Carine Brochier, a Catholic bioethicist from Brussels, told Catholic News Service in a telephone interview on 3 May she was certain that political and financial pressure was exerted on the Brothers of Charity Group to allow euthanasia.

The group's new policy document, which was drafted in March, comes about a year after a court fined the St. Augustine Catholic rest home in Diest, Belgium, for refusing to allow the euthanasia of a lung cancer patient on its premises.

The home was ordered to pay 6,000 euros after it prevented doctors from giving a lethal injection to Mariette Buntjens, 74, who instead was taken by ambulance to her private address to die "in peaceful surroundings."

"The pro-euthanasia movement is really happy about what is happening," said Brochier, adding that she believed internal pressures also influenced the decision.

"The Brothers of Charity work with laypeople. Those people think that euthanasia should be allowed in the premises," she said. "Also, I guess some of the Brothers of Charity wanted the euthanasia to be permitted within the walls.

"Rene Stockman is completely the opposite way, but the Brothers of Charity here in Belgium are very, very progressive," she said.

The new policy document harmonises the practices of the centres in the group with Belgian law on euthanasia.

It sought to balance the Catholic belief in the inviolability of innocent human life with duty of care under the law and with the demands of patient autonomy.

The group has promised to take requests for death seriously, and it expressed the opinion that "a carefully guided euthanasia can prevent more violent forms of suicide."

The policy document has acknowledged the difficulties in providing euthanasia to psychiatric patients, noting that Belgian euthanasia law was "primarily written for physical suffering in a terminal situation."

The suffering of psychiatric patients must therefore be considered hopeless, unbearable and untreatable if a request for euthanasia was to proceed, the policy document says, adding that requests must be voluntarily and repeatedly made by a competent adult for them to be legitimate.

After three doctors have assented to the patient's request, the euthanasia can go ahead on the Brothers of Charity premises, the document concluded.

"If the euthanasia procedure takes place in a facility of the Brothers of Charity, a preliminary review is necessary," it says. "The reason is that, on the one hand, we want to respect the physician's therapeutic freedom, but on the other hand we want to go about euthanasia being performed in a facility of the Brothers of Charity with the utmost caution."

In the Flanders region of Belgium, the order is considered to be the most important provider of mental health care services. The order also runs schools, employing about 12,000 staff nationwide.

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

Raf De Rycke, chairman of the board of the Brothers of Charity Group, said in comments reported by De Morgen on 25 April that the group was guided by three fundamental values in producing the policy: respect for the patient's life, the autonomy of the patient and the relationship between the care provider and the patient.

"The protection of life remains fundamental," said De Rycke. "But we also want to respect the patient's autonomy, even if he has the desire to live no longer. We do not approve of the (euthanasia) act as such, but respect the demand and see (permitting) it as a form of charity."

Brochier said she suspected the Belgian bishops were "very embarrassed" by the policy but suggested they shared some of the blame because, she said, they appeared to give up the fight against euthanasia, partly by failing to correct some priests and doctors when they have argued for the procedure while publicly purporting to be Catholic.

"It is very difficult to hear a clear message about euthanasia," Brochier said. "But it should be condemned very strongly, and doctors who perform euthanasia should have a clear message from the church, from the pope, from the bishops, so that they can understand that they are killing somebody."

"Palliative care is very good in Belgium. We don't need euthanasia," she added.

CNS repeatedly try to reach the Belgian bishops' conference for comment.

Belgium legalised euthanasia in 2003, a year after the Netherlands became the first country since Nazi Germany to introduce the procedure.

Technically, euthanasia in Belgium remains an offense, with the law protecting doctors from prosecution only if they abide by carefully set criteria.

This initially included limiting euthanasia only to adults who were suffering unbearably and who were able to give their consent but, in 2014, the law was also extended to "emancipated children."

Despite safeguards, critics have argued the law is interpreted so liberally that euthanasia is available on demand, with doctors also increasingly giving lethal injections to people who are disabled, demented or mentally ill.

PICTURE:Activists take part in an anti-euthanasia protest in Brussels.

Article List

Read more from the original source:

Head of Belgian Catholic religious order protests as euthanasia ... - The Tablet

BRUSSELS, Belgium Following a decision by the board of several Belgian Catholic psychiatric hospitals to start performing euthanasia, the religious brothers who operate the hospitals said the policy change is unacceptable and cannot be implemented.

We deplore this new vision, said Brother Ren Stockman, the superior general of the Brothers of Charity. Stockman is himself a Belgian and a leading opponent of euthanasia.

The Brothers of Charity in Belgium run 15 psychiatric hospitals with 5,000 patients. The board controlling their institutions has said it will now allow euthanasia in these hospitals.

Stockman said he has informed the Belgian congregation that as general superior we cannot accept this decision, because it is going totally against our charism of the charity.

He said the decision can not at all be justified in a Christian framework. It is a real tragedy, he told the Australian-based website MercatorNet in an interview published April 28.

The Belgian Brothers of Charity board announced the decision on its website.

We take seriously unbearable and hopeless suffering and patients request for euthanasia, the board said. On the other hand, we do want to protect lives and ensure that euthanasia is performed only if there is no more possibility to provide a reasonable perspective to treat the patient.

Stockman said only a few brothers are still involved on the board governing the Belgian facilities. The majority of the members are lay people.

Yes, there was a lot of pressure, but pressure doesnt mean that we have to capitulate, he said, charging that secularization is poisoning the congregation in Belgium.

Raf De Ryce, chairman of the board overseeing the institutions, contended that the new policy was not a major change, the bioethics site BioEdge reports, citing Belgian newspapers.

It is not that we used to be against euthanasia and now suddenly are for it. This is consistent with our existing criteria, he said. We are making both possible routes for our patients: both a pro-life perspective and euthanasia.

De Ryce said the inviolability of life is an important foundation but for the board it is not an absolute.

This is where we are on a different wavelength from Rome, he said.

Stockman, however, said the decision of the Belgian organization has had a big impact. It has drawn praise from backers of legal euthanasia.

All those who were against us are now singing that finally the group of the Brothers of Charity capitulated and came into their camp, he said.

The Catholic hospitals previous policy was clear about opposition to euthanasia.

When someone asked for euthanasia, the question was taken seriously; everything was done to help the patient to change his vision of things, Stockman said. If the situation remained unchanged, the patient was transferred.

This transfer was done with respect, but always convinced that a signal was given to society that inside our institutes no euthanasia was possible, he said. This was very important.

The Brothers of Charitys general congregation has informed the Belgian bishops conference and the apostolic nuncio to Belgium about the matter. Stockman said he is in contact with the bishops conference president Cardinal Jozef De Kesel.

See the article here:

Belgian priests push back on euthanasia directive for Catholic ... - Crux: Covering all things Catholic

PUEBLO, Colo. (KKTV) - Once upon a time, the future looked bleak for a pit bull puppy.

The 5-month-old flunked an aggression test and was scheduled for euthanization.

"We have to make our decision based on what we feel is safe for the community," Julie Justman, director at Pueblo Animal Services, explained at the time. "We take that part of our job very seriously."

The pup had been found by the side of the road in March and brought to the Pueblo branch of the Humane Society of the Pikes Peak Region. Justman explained that all animals brought to the shelter undergo the behavior assessment and also have their behavior monitored from the moment they show up.

"It concerns me even more that this puppy is showing this behavior at that young an age," Justman said, calling the puppy controlling and hyper.

It didn't sit well with Kent Hill that everyone was ready to give up on the dog.

"It was such a little dog, it's just a little puppy, 5 months old. It could have such a great future. It's still learning, it can grow out of any tendencies," Hill said at the time.

Hill wanted to adopt the dog from the moment he laid eyes on it and was convinced it could be rehabilitated. He had adopted pit bull mix eight years before from the same shelter, also slated for euthanization because of behavior issues. Bruno is now a therapy dog.

The shelter was first adamant that it would not change its mind, telling 11 News that once a dog fails its behavior test, it's a matter of public safety to not let that dog be adopted.

Intense interest the community showed in Hill's fight for the dog ultimately convinced the shelter to transfer the puppy to a shelter with a behavior specialist and try to give it another shot.

Hill contacted 11 News Wednesday with the good news: the specialist had informed him the behavior training was complete and the dog was now up for adoption.

"They evaluated her over a weekend and then contacted me on a Monday and they said, 'Do you still want to adopt this puppy? Because is you dont, we have several staff members that would like to adopt her.' I said yes. I most definitely want this puppy."

Hill said the dog is a model pup.

"At 6 month old, she's gentle. She's fantastic with kids. She's great with patients. She's already providing therapy to hurting patients.

"Shes been exceptional since the day I brought her home. Shes been the most exceptional puppy I have ever owned."

Hill said he was grateful to 11 News for the story we did in late March and the efforts of other Pueblo residents to make sure the puppy survived.

"You saved this puppy. The people of Pueblo saved this puppy."

He hopes that his story will help shelters realize that "bad" dogs can be rehabilitated.

"The evaluation process to determine whether a dog lives or dies I think needs to be reassessed. Whoever is doing these evaluations is putting to death savable, adoptable, very incredible, good animals."

The humane society released a statement after learning of the adoption.

"We are very happy there was a positive outcome for this dog, and we are grateful to our behavior modification rescue partners for their help in cases like this. We've made huge strides in saving more animals than ever before over the past several years. We would love to develop our own behavior modification program at the shelter in the future when funding is available."

May Hill, Bruno and the newest member of their family live happily ever after.

Excerpt from:

Pit bull thriving after being rescued from euthanasia - KKTV 11 News