Category Archives: Euthanasia

It was so predictable I predicted it.

Following Belgium and the Netherlands, Canadian MDs have conjoined euthanasia and organ harvesting before it was specifically allowed in Canadian law. From the National Post story:

Doctors have already harvested organs from dozens of Canadians who underwent medically assisted death, a practice supporters say expands the pool of desperately needed organs, but ethicists worry could make it harder for euthanasia patients to voice a last-minute change of heart.

In Ontario, 26 people who died by lethal injection have donated tissue or organs since the federal law decriminalizing medical assistance in dying, or MAID, came into effect last June, according to information obtained by the Post. A total of 338 have died by medical assistance in the province.

Most of the 26 were tissue donors, which usually involves eyes, skin, heart valves, bones and tendons.

Allowing a person to consent to homicidewhich is what we are talking about herewith the intention of organ donation, puts great pressure on despairing people who can come to think that their deaths are more valuable than their lives.

Even worse, society can come to see such people as so many organ farms too.

We are watching the most brutal and awful things transpire with barely a peep of protest.

Well, I will: Suicidal people need suicide prevention, not the implied encouragement of allowing their killing to be conjoined with organ procurement.

Read the original post:

Canada Conjoins Euthanasia and Organ Harvesting | National Review - National Review

[Updated] I have asked the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to immediately halt the euthanasia or deportation of illegal animals that have no history of aggression pending legislative amendments and a full review of policies going forward, Minister of the Environment Sylvan Richards said.

Speaking in the House of Assembly today [March 20], Minister Richards said, You will be well aware that this Government, as well as former administrations, categorizes dogs by breed into a Prohibited, Restricted or un-restricted breed. Despite no legal breeding of these dogs since 2003, the Pitbull remains the most popular breed or type of dog of the Prohibited category.

A Pitbull can have the temperament of a loving family pet, but also that of a fierce fighter. The breed continues to be the most problematic breed, causing injury at a rate far above its prevalence in the general canine population. The behavior of the dog is not simply a question of the owners training or diligence.

Illegal dogs are those dogs born outside of the authority of a Breeders Licence. To deal with illegal dogs, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has developed numerous policy iterations, the most recent having been established in December 2015.

In this policy, illegal dogs of a prohibited breed faced euthanasia or deportation, even if the individual animal had no history of having been a threat to public safety. I find this fact to be disturbing, as do many other people in our community.

I have asked the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to immediately halt the euthanasia or deportation of illegal animals that have no history of aggression pending legislative amendments and a full review of policies going forward.

The halting of euthanasia and deportations of illegal animals with no history of aggression does not mean that the Government will forgive the illegalities that have occurred, but simply we will not be separating these animals from their owners at this time. This action is simply a pause in this aspect of the enforcement activities.

I will not at this time make any promises about a long-term solution to illegal Pitbulls and other prohibited breeds, but only promise a comprehensive exploration of all of the options.

Owners of all dogs are advised to fully demonstrate responsible ownership. Be aware that if your illegal dog does act in a threatening manner or causes injury, it will be subject to seizure and disposal. This Government does take public safety very seriously.

Update 12.56pm: A spokesperson for the Punish The Deed Not The Breed group said they are pleased to hear that there will be a halt to the seizure and killing of dogs being targeted solely on the basis of breed specific legislation.

We are of the understanding that the Canine Committee received our legislation amendments over a year ago and has had meetings to address the issues that the public have raised and supported about dog ownership laws in Bermuda.

We are firm believers that responsible dog ownership is a must, and that legislation should reflect that, and while we are pleased with the halt of the killing of non violent dogs, we also are pleading with the Government to implement dog legislation that will be a solution on a more permanent basis; addressing the fact that the dogs can be better regulated if they are a restricted breed, as opposed to them being driven underground by prohibited breed legislation.

The Ministers full statement follows below:

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker,

The issues of dogs and public safety have been raised in this Honourable House on numerous occasions, most recently by my colleague, the Honourable Minister N. Cole Simons, JP, MP in June of 2016. At that time, he reminded us that the Dogs Act 2008 had been passed by this House to bring about better control of canines, more efficient and effective enforcement, and the ability to put conditions of the keeping of individual dogs. But the 2008 Act also contains provisions that would lead us down an undesirable path where we would have weaker enforcement on some crucial aspects, such as breeding of dogs. We would not want to see an upsurge in the breeding of problematic animals. Thus I wish to inform Members of this House, and the general public, that I have continued the work of my predecessor to amend the Dogs Act 2008, based on the recommendations of the Canine Advisory Committees and various stakeholders.

The numerous amendments to the Dogs Act 2008 are in the drafting stage and I anticipate a much-improved piece of legislation about mid-year, which will place this Government in a position to re-visit the controversial breed-specific policies.

Mr. Speaker,

You will be well aware that this Government, as well as former administrations, categorizes dogs by breed into a Prohibited, Restricted or un-restricted breed. Despite no legal breeding of these dogs since 2003, the Pitbull remains the most popular breed or type of dog of the Prohibited category.

A Pitbull can have the temperament of a loving family pet, but also that of a fierce fighter. The breed continues to be the most problematic breed, causing injury at a rate far above its prevalence in the general canine population. The behavior of the dog is not simply a question of the owners training or diligence.

Mr. Speaker,

Illegal dogs are those dogs born outside of the authority of a Breeders Licence. To deal with illegal dogs, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has developed numerous policy iterations, the most recent having been established in December 2015. In this policy, illegal dogs of a prohibited breed faced euthanasia or deportation, even if the individual animal had no history of having been a threat to public safety. I find this fact to be disturbing, as do many other people in our community.

Mr. Speaker,

Today, I advise this honourable House that I have asked the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to immediately halt the euthanasia or deportation of illegal animals that have no history of aggression pending legislative amendments and a full review of policies going forward. The halting of euthanasia and deportations of illegal animals with no history of aggression does not mean that the Government will forgive the illegalities that have occurred, but simply we will not be separating these animals from their owners at this time. This action is simply a pause in this aspect of the enforcement activities.

Mr. Speaker,

The essential question remains Can a Government justify the confiscation & euthanasia of a family pet dog that has not yet offended, even though its breed is responsible for very high rates of offences? Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that the confiscation of pets is highly controversial and emotive. The Governments practice of euthanasia of healthy dogs is open to criticism and deemed unethical by opponents, although statistics and history indicate that leaving such dogs in the community will lead to increased complaints in future years.

Mr. Speaker,

Bermuda implemented breed-specific policy in 2003 with success, yet breed-specific legislation/policy is very unpopular as it paints individual dogs with a broad brush without regard for individual variation. It affects all citizens instead of only irresponsible citizens who keep offending dogs. Opponents of breed-specific legislation insist that biting/injury and straying incidents are a result of irresponsible owners and are not a function of the breed. Their mantra is Punish the deed, not the breed. Whether the owner or the dog is responsible for the offence, Bermudas statistics indicate a positive result from our breed-specific policy, which continues to seek prevention of injury; not merely a reaction to injury once injury has occurred.

Mr. Speaker,

I will not at this time make any promises about a long-term solution to illegal Pitbulls and other prohibited breeds, but only promise a comprehensive exploration of all of the options.

Owners of all dogs are advised to fully demonstrate responsible ownership. Be aware that if your illegal dog does act in a threatening manner or causes injury, it will be subject to seizure and disposal. This Government does take public safety very seriously.

Mr. Speaker,

I take this opportunity to thank the Animal Wardens who do have a job made more difficult by actions of irresponsible people in our community. Through their efforts, combined with those of the Bermuda Police Service, SPCA, the Canine Advisory Committees and canine groups, the Bermuda has become a safer community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

#Animal #BermudaPolitics #Dogs

Category: All, News, Politics

Continue reading here:

Halt Euthanasia/Deportation Of 'Illegal' Animals - Bernews

US Indigenous Affairs: How President Obama Has Protected Our Sacred Land

I am very proud to be both Navajo and American. As the President of the Navajo Nation, Ive dedicated my life to ensuring that, as a Navajo, my story -- and our stories -- are part of our collective American history. Today, I want to share one of those stories with you. More>>

Binoy Kampmark: The Berlin Truck Attack And The Refugee Question

The hard-nosed neo-cons were certainly showing little interest in linking arguments, examining evidence, or even considering elementary logic in the aftermath of the Berlin truck attack near the Gedchtniskirche. With the bodies fresh in the morgue, former US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, peered into the mind of the everyday German, and found teeth chattering fear. More>>

Demonetisation: Gordon Campbell On Indias Huge Socio-Economic Experiment

Without much coverage at all in the West, India has just been engaged for the past few weeks in one of the worlds biggest socio-economic experiments since the Cultural Revolution in China. More>>

Gordon Campbell: On The Death Of Fidel Castro

New Zealand likes to think we played our part via the 1981 Springbok tour in bringing the apartheid regime in South Africa to an end Jacob Zuma treated the death of Fidel Castro at the weekend as an occasion to pay a heartfelt tribute to the thousands of Cuban soldiers who travelled across the world to inflict the first significant military defeat on the forces of white supremacy. More>>

Read more from the original source:

Euthanasia 'Elephant In The Room' - Healthcare Costs - Scoop.co.nz (press release)

Posted March 20, 2017 06:02:15

Nikki Gemmell could not bear listening to her elderly mother when she said euthanasia was the only way to release her from debilitating chronic pain.

"Don't you want to see the grandkids grow up?" Nikki would cry.

As she told Australian Story, she wanted her four children to grow into adulthood with their beautiful, fabulous Nonna an empowered, independent grandmother who took them to shows and arrived with beautifully decorated cupcakes on their birthday.

Nikki knew her mum Elayn was in pain after a failed foot operation ended up causing leg and back pain. She suspected an opioid addiction was making her feel even more desperate. But nothing prepared her for the police on her doorstep one morning in October 2015.

"Mum had sat down on her favourite chair in front of the TV and ate pills like lollies and drank Baileys Irish Cream until she fell asleep," revealed Nikki's brother Paul Gemmell.

Blindsided by shock and grief, Nikki was aware that the police officers in her kitchen that day were also taking notes. Had she known about her mother's plan? Had she helped her in some way?

It suddenly dawned on Nikki that they were fishing to see if she had helped her mother to die.

Desperate for answers, Nikki and Paul searched their mother's apartment. Had she left a note with some explanation, some last expression of love? Was it an accidental overdose or a deliberate act? Were those clothes hanging on the door a suggestion for a burial outfit?

There was the trauma of identifying her cold body in the morgue the next day. The anxious wait for the results of the autopsy. The exhaustion of calling up her friends to break the news. Had Elayn talked to anyone of her plans?

But there was no note. No last expression of love.

And the autopsy would reveal Elayn died from multi-drug toxicity. In other words, an overdose.

"Mum's death was horrifically lonely and bleak because she couldn't tell anyone what she was going to do for fear of implicating her family and friends, so she did it entirely alone," Nikki said.

Like a detective, Nikki set out to piece together her mother's last months, days and hours. A prolific writer, she began to also explore the often tempestuous and difficult relationship that had dogged her life in a book about her mother's life and death.

"Mum was the love of my life and the hate of my life. When we were good, we were very, very good. When we were bad, we were horrid. We both knew how to hurt each other," Nikki said.

"If I had just one minute with her again, just a minute, I would just tell her, 'Mum, you were magnificent, you were so magnificent and I love you so much'.

"I feel like I never told her that in my life."

Elayn's death sent Nikki down the rabbit hole of the euthanasia debate, examining the issues around elderly suicide and assisted dying.

"I just wish I'd listened to Mum rationally. I wish I'd had a very calm conversation with her about what she really wanted to do in terms of the end of her life without me getting emotional, without me talking about the grandkids," Nikki said.

"I wish I had been there for her, in a way that I just wasn't."

As a columnist for The Australian, Nikki went public about her mother's suicide, asking her readers if her mother's final act was one of empowerment or despair.

Nikki's experience and time spent researching the euthanasia debate has made her a passionate advocate for change. She is watching with interest as Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews plans to introduce a bill supporting assisted dying into Parliament later this year.

If these laws are passed, they would be the first in Australia to legalise euthanasia since the Northern Territory's laws were overturned by the Federal Government in the 1990s.

"Because there is no law, it's this awful Catch-22 situation," Nikki said.

"Maybe you want to tell your family your plans to take your life to save them from all the trauma and the shock. But if you do implicate them, they can be charged. So we condemn these people who want to die, to this bleak and lonely death without anyone around them."

Someone reached out to Nikki after her column and changed her life.

Helena (not her real name) is a doctor specialising in addiction and recovery and a mother of four adult children.

Twenty-three years ago, a viral infection led to a rare form of arthritis. She has been living with chronic pain ever since.

She reached out to Nikki to help her understand the nature of chronic pain and why her mother may have felt that taking her life was the only way out of her predicament.

"There's always been cases like Elayn, but if quick easy access to pain management options were available and, alternatively, if carefully considered access to the option of assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia was available, I would hope that a death like Elayn's would become far less common than it is," she said.

Despite her medical knowledge, Helena struggles daily against the temptation to abuse pain medication. She has watched her life become slowly reduced and says she can't live like this for much longer.

"The amount of mental tension it takes just to keep it under control is just absolutely extreme and you've got to fight against it becoming the central aspect of your life all the time," she said.

"Opiates are fantastic, they make you feel good and they make your pain better, it's a daily struggle against abusing them."

Pain specialist Professor Paul Glare said euthanasia was "never justified" in a patient with chronic pain.

"If Nikki's mother had have come here, she would have been seen by a doctor, a physiotherapist and a psychologist," he said.

"We make our assessments and then we combine them to come up with an integrated plan to offer her."

Although Helena would recommend and has been treated herself at pain clinics, she said the pain has finally become too difficult to bear.

"For the last five years I've been planning how and when I'm going to end my life," Helena said.

A year ago she gathered her children together and informed them that this would be their last year together. She withdrew some of her superannuation and took each of them on overseas adventures.

She said she plans to take her own life.

But it will not be a shock to her loved ones the way Elayn's death was to Nikki and her family. With her children and a friend, Helena plans to travel to Switzerland, to the accompanied dying facility Dignitas and be helped to die .

Helena's story is a counterpoint to the lonely isolated death Nikki's mother Elayn had endured, unable to tell anyone of her plans for fear of implicating them in her death.

"If only we we could have been there, if only we could have held her hand. It could have been so different if we could have just surrounded her with love."

Watch 'My Mother's Secret' on Australian Story 8:00pm ABC TV and ABC iview.

Topics: euthanasia, suicide, older-people, diseases-and-disorders, family, drugs-and-substance-abuse, australia

More:

Euthanasia debate becomes personal for Nikki Gemmell after mother's 'lonely death' - ABC Online

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 the Minnesota Supreme Court declined to review the conviction of the Final Exit Network.

On May 14, 2015, the Final Exit Network was found guilty, by a jury, of assisted suicide and the group was sentenced on August 24, 2015.

On December 19, 2016, theMinnesota appeals court upheld the conviction of the Final Exit Networkin the assisted suicide death of Doreen Dunn who died on May 30, 2007.

In a Final Exit Network Press Release, the assisted suicide group stated that the Supreme Court of Minnesota declined to review their conviction so they will be asking the Supreme Court of the United States to review their conviction.

During the 2015 trial,the Lacrosse Tribunereported:

Dakota County prosecutor Elizabeth Swank told jurors that the evidence showed that two members of Final Exit Network went to Dunns home in Apple Valley to assist her suicide. They then removed the equipment that she used for suicide so that it appeared she had died of natural causes.

Dunns husband of 29 years arrived home on May 30, 2007, to find her dead on the couch. Swank said Dunn had a blanket pulled up to her neck with her hands folded on her chest.

Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures.

Swank said that despite Dunns pain and depression, she had no life-threatening illness and her family was puzzled by her death. There were good things happening in her life: Her daughter who had been in Africa for about a year was coming home the next day and her sons fiancee was scheduled to give birth that week. However, her husband was also planning to move out, the prosecutor said.

The Final Exit Network has been prosecuted in several assisted suicide cases. In Georgia, John Celmer, who was depressed after recovering from cancer, the Final Exit Network assisted his suicide. Celmers widow Susan Celmer, testified against the Final Exit Network. The Final Exit Network assists the suicide of people at the most vulnerable time of their life. Larry Egbert, the former medical director for the Final Exit Network,lost his medical licensein Maryland.

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

Read more:

Euthanasia Advocates Final Exit Network Still Guilty of Killing Patient in Assisted Suicide - LifeNews.com

MercatorNet

16000 Voices Kiwis say no to euthanasia MercatorNet Shortly after, Labour MP Maryan Street and the Voluntary Euthanasia Society presented a petition to parliament for a law change to allow doctor-assisted suicide. The government responded to the petition signed by 8975 people with a public inquiry ...

Follow this link:

16000 Voices Kiwis say no to euthanasia - MercatorNet

In 2004, Neil Gorsuch was awarded a doctorate in legal philosophy by the University of Oxford, the British institution where he studied as a Marshall Scholar. Gorsuchs doctoral thesis on euthanasia and assisted suicide served as the basis for his 2006 book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. At Gorsuchs confirmation hearing that year, Sen. Lindsey Graham asked Gorsuch about his writings on assisted suicide and euthanasia, noting that Gorsuch had been prolific.

Gorsuch assured Graham that his personal views would have nothing to do with the case before him in any situation. Having said that, though, Gorsuch added that his writings on assisted suicide and euthanasia had been largely in defense of existing law and were consistent with the Supreme Courts decisions in this area and existing law in most places.

When Gorsuch first began his studies at Oxford in the early 1990s, euthanasia and assisted suicide were both high-profile and controversial issues. In 1997, in Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill, the Supreme Court rejected challenges to the constitutionality of state laws banning assisted suicide. But, Gorsuch emphasized in his book, the justices who concurred in that ruling left open the question whether such laws would be unconstitutional in the specific cases of adults who were terminally ill. Thus, far from definitively resolving the assisted suicide issue, Gorsuch suggested, the Courts decisions seem to assure that the debate over assisted suicide and euthanasia is not yet overand may have only begun.

Gorsuchs prediction appears to have mostly missed the mark: The debate over assisted suicide and euthanasia largely subsided in the years following the publication of his book. Assisted suicide remains illegal in 44 states, while all 50 states ban euthanasia, and there have been few signs that the issues could make their way to the Supreme Court anytime soon. But Gorsuchs book on assisted suicide and euthanasia nonetheless remains relevant, not only for what it tells us about his views and his writings more generally, but also for what (if anything) we might be able to glean from the book that might shed more light on his views on abortion.

Much of Gorsuchs book is devoted to an exhaustive (but not exhausting) survey of the history of assisted suicide and euthanasia, the legal and ethical arguments in favor of the two, and court cases in the United States and the United Kingdom dealing with the right to die. Gorsuch is sharply critical of experiments with allowing assisted suicide and euthanasia in the Netherlands and Oregon. In the Netherlands, Gorsuch observes, it appears that, for every three or four acts of voluntary euthanasia, the Dutch regime generates one case of a patient being killed without consent. Moreover, he continues, euthanasia and assisted suicide are often motivated less by the desire to alleviate pain or respect patient autonomy than by a physicians subjective belief that the patients quality of life is degrading or hopeless.

And in Oregon, which allows capable adults with terminal diseases to request medication to end their lives, the law does not require physicians to refer patients who want to commit assisted suicide to mental health professionals. Gorsuch cites data raising the possibility that other factors, such as depression or isolation, rather than terminal illnesses, may be driving assisted suicide in Oregon. Reporting requirements in the state are minimal, he adds, such that Oregon officials admit that they have no idea how often state law is violated, and no way to detect cases of abuse and mistake. Given the many flaws in the two regimes, he points to the potential costs if assisted suicide and euthanasia were legalized more broadly particularly the prospect that they could lead to pressure, real or imagined, for the poor, minorities and the elderly to commit assisted suicide, in part because of the high costs of health care in the United States.

Although Gorsuch was correct at his confirmation hearing that his book defends existing laws prohibiting assisted suicide and euthanasia, the book offers an alternative ground to justify them: the idea that all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life is always wrong. Dubbing his rationale the inviolability-of-life principle, he characterizes it as a middle path between two extremes on the one hand, the idea that life is the most important good that must always be maintained and, on the other, the idea that a person could die or be killed based on someone elses judgment about his quality of life.

Gorsuchs middle ground would, he takes pains to emphasize, still allow terminally ill patients to refuse or discontinue treatment; it would also allow medical personnel to prescribe high doses of morphine or other painkillers when death is near. The critical, rational moral line, he explains, is intent. When medical personnel and the patients family are seeking to relieve the patients pain, or the patient doesnt have a suicidal impulse but opts to discontinue or refuse treatment out of a recognition of the inevitability of death, doctors should be permitted to prescribe painkillers and discontinue treatment even when they know that death will result and may even be accelerated. But, he cautions, doctors cannot do these same things when they do so with the intent to cause the patients death.

Allowing doctors to prescribe an overdose of morphine or discontinue care with the intent to relieve a patients physical suffering, even knowing that it will also result in death, but not allowing it with the intent to cause death may seem like a somewhat artificial distinction. But, in Gorsuchs view, the distinction would also solve a constitutional conundrum: If as essentially all states allow patients can refuse care or discontinue treatment, why shouldnt they also have a right to a doctors assistance in committing suicide? Although other efforts by scholars and lawyers to distinguish assisted suicide and euthanasia from the right to refuse treatment fall short, Gorsuch contends, an intent-based distinction may work sufficiently well to withstand a constitutional equal protection challenge. Assisted suicide and euthanasia differ from the right to refuse in that they necessarily entail an intent to kill and, with it, the judgment that a patients life is no longer worth living. Such an intention may be present in a decision to refuse treatment, but, I suggest, it need not be.

Gorsuch devotes an entire chapter to an analysis of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Courts 1992 decision reaffirming a womans right to an abortion, and Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, the courts 1990 decision upholding the states refusal to allow the parents of a woman in a persistent vegetative state to terminate treatment on her behalf. The question for Gorsuch is whether the two cases support an interest in autonomy, protected by the Constitution, that could in turn support a right to assisted suicide and euthanasia. In his view, they do not. He maintains that the courts decision in Casey should be read more narrowly, pointing to the portion of the decision in which a plurality of the court argues that the doctrine of stare decisis, or respect for long-settled law, required continued adherence to the courts 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which recognized a womans right to terminate her pregnancy.

In a footnote, Gorsuch stresses that his analysis in his book is limited to assisted suicide and euthanasia; he has no intent to engage the abortion debate. But he doesnt stop at that. Instead, he acknowledges that abortion would be ruled out by the inviolability-of-life principle I intend to set forth if, but only if, a fetus is considered a human life. Gorsuch then seems to pull back again, reminding his readers that in Roe the Supreme Court unequivocally held that a fetus is not a person for purposes of constitutional law suggesting, perhaps, that the issue has already been taken off the table. However, when Gorsuch makes the same statement elsewhere in the book, he again cites Roe, but he also cites a dissent by Justice Byron White, for whom Gorsuch clerked. Gorsuch characterizes the White dissent as arguing that the right to terminate a pregnancy differs from the right to use contraceptives because the former involves the death of a person while the latter does not. Gorsuch may not share Whites view, but his decision to include it is somewhat curious given what he has elsewhere described as the courts unequivocal holding.

Is Gorsuchs reference to the White dissent a veiled hint into his own views on abortion or merely an effort to give equal time to an opposing view? It is impossible to know for certain, and we arent likely to learn anything more at his confirmation hearing. If Gorsuch is confirmed, we may have to wait for the next challenge to laws regulating abortion to reach the Supreme Court.

Posted in Nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, A close look at Judge Neil Gorsuchs jurisprudence, Featured

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Gorsuch on euthanasia and assisted suicide and abortion?, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 16, 2017, 5:29 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/gorsuch-euthanasia-assisted-suicide-abortion/

See original here:

Gorsuch on euthanasia and assisted suicide and abortion? - SCOTUSblog (blog)

By Alex Schadenberg , Executive Director Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Earlier this week CBC news reported that the number of euthanasia deaths in Qubec significantly increased in the second half of 2016.

Moreover, the 6-month report indicated that 14% of the euthanasia deaths were non-compliant with the law.

According to the CBC news report:

A total of 461 patients were granted doctor-assisted death during the first year of Quebecs medical aid in dying law, according to data obtained by CBCs French-language service, Radio-Canada.

The number of requests increased significantly in the second half of 2016. From December 2015 to end of June 2016, 253 patients requested the procedure, and 166 of them underwent it.

Between June and December 2016, 468 people made requests for medically assisted dying, with 295 of them undergoing it.

The CBC news report explained that requests and rate of acceptance vary by region:

Five health services centres in Quebec saw substantial increases in the number of requests they were receiving, a rise of more than 200 per cent.

For example, the West Island Integrated University Health and Social Services Centre (CIUSSS) saw an increase of 266.7 per cent after the first six months.

Meanwhile, the data shows the rate of acceptance varies based on where the request is made.

Similar to other jurisdictions, euthanasia is introduced under the guise of a strictly regulated law whereby lethal injection will be presented as a final alternative, but over time, it becomes more accepted, promoted and common.

Editors note. This appeared on Mr. Schadenbergs blogand is reposted with permission.

View original post here:

Number of Euthanasia deaths increasing quickly in Qubec - National Right to Life News

The New South Wales Greens upper house member Mehreen Faruqi fears greyhounds are still being euthanised because of minor injuries, underperformance, or cost. Photograph: Dan Himbrechts/EPA

A New South Wales greyhound owner was able to put down six young, healthy dogs within three weeks of obtaining them, according to internal records.

The case, and others like it, have prompted a renewed push by the NSW Greens for a breeding cap and stronger penalties for vets and owners who euthanise healthy greyhounds.

NSWs upper house last year voted in favour of releasing thousands of pages of documents held by Greyhound Racing NSW, the body responsible for governing and regulating the industry.

The first set of documents was handed over late last year and a second volume is due to be released later this month, despite attempts by Greyhound Racing NSW to prevent disclosure.

The initial documents revealed a series of examples in which trainers attempted to put down dogs unnecessarily.

In one case in the states north-east, a former greyhound trainer euthanised six healthy dogs within three weeks of taking possession of them.

The man had the dogs put down despite an offer by their previous owners to take them back, according to internal records.

Greyhound Racing NSWs intelligence team was contacted by the original owners wife, who was said to be deeply distressed by the mans actions.

Intelligence was contacted by [redacted] on 23 June, 2016, who was deeply distressed by the fact that her healthy, young greyhounds had been put down, internal case notes said.

Stated that [redacted] was told if he couldnt keep them that he was to return them. [Redacted] stated they only gave dogs on request by a friend [redacted] who stated [redacted] wanted to get into the industry. [Redacted] had asked that they give some greyhounds to get him started.

Greyhound NSW took no action against the man, because he was no longer a registered trainer, and did not refer him to other authorities, because no crime had been committed.

The special inquiry into greyhound racing in NSW found that up to 68,000 dogs were killed as wastage in the past 12 years.

Stewards reports showed that dogs are still regularly being put down immediately after races in NSW.

Twenty-one greyhounds have been euthanised at tracks so far this year. Vastly more dogs were injured during racing but not immediately put down. Their fate after they left the track is unknown.

The NSW Greens MLC Mehreen Faruqi fears that greyhounds are still unnecessarily being euthanised, either due to minor injuries, underperformance, or cost.

Their whole business model relies on the overbreeding of greyhounds and the killing of dogs that arent fast enough, or are no longer profitable, Faruqi said.

The internal documents revealed another case last year, in which a steward was forced to intervene to stop a veterinarian euthanising a greyhound that had a swollen leg.

The dogs trainer approached the vet after a race in the Hunter, saying his dog had broken its hock and needed to be put down.

At the time [the trainer] seemed quite annoyed that I refused to allow his greyhound to be euthanised on track, the steward wrote in his report to Greyhound Racing NSW.

I find it disturbing that if I was not in the kennelling block that day a greyhound would have been euthanized unnecessarily. There is far too much going on throughout the day for the stewards to be everywhere and in control of every aspect of the meeting.

The dog was treated and later returned to racing.

The industry is still preparing for a suite of animal welfare reforms following the dramatic backflip on the greyhound ban last year.

Planned reforms to the industry will be shaped by the recommendations of the greyhound industry reform panel, which were delivered last month.

The panels key recommendation was for the creation of a new integrity commission to oversee the industry and the introduction of tougher penalties for live-baiting. It also recommended tighter controls on euthanasia.

The panel did not recommend a breeding cap or setting target dates to achieve zero euthanasia.

Faruqi said the panels failure to recommend a cap meant greyhounds would continue to be overbred and disposed of.

She called for specific penalties for veterinarians who allow healthy dogs to be put down, or for anyone who attempts to intimidate or harass vets into performing euthanasia unnecessarily.

Surely, the industry cant be allowed to go back to business-as-usual, putting down dogs when they are no longer financially viable, Faruqi said.

We need to break this culture of cruelty and ensure that veterinarians, who under the proposed recommendations are the only pathway to disposing of unwanted dogs, are not euthanising healthy dogs or being pressured to do so by the industry participants.

Greyhound Racing NSW said it had already introduced breeding restrictions in mid-2015. Those restrictions limit the number and frequency of litters for breeding females.

A spokesman said that had coincided with a 55% drop in pups born year-on-year until December last year.

It also introduced measures last year to force owners to seek written consent from Greyhound Racing NSW before euthanising healthy greyhounds.

The spokesman said a number of other initiatives were currently being considered, including forcing owners to take all reasonable steps to re-home greyhounds where appropriate, and increasing the fees for registering litters of pups.

GRNSW would be happy to meet with the Greens to discuss its proposals to reduce euthanasia and how they could be effectively implemented, he said.

This would be preferable rather than hearing them second-hand through an intermediary in the media.

The documents also suggest that Greyhound Racing NSW kept a watch list of vets with high euthanasia rates but the organisation has denied such a list exists.

Continue reading here:

Greyhound racing: euthanasia of healthy dogs sparks call for ... - The Guardian

Well-known activist, founder of the Malta ALS Foundation and ALS sufferer Bjorn Formosa believes that the debate about euthanasia is being made prematurely, and that it should only be a very last resort.

Speaking with The Malta Independent, Mr Formosa explained that it is his belief that if a person is still able to communicate with the world in one form of another, there is still scope for living.

We want to improve the quality of lives. You cannot decide what state a person is in, and ultimately the choice is always individuals.

Mr Formosa believes that we need to speak about the living-will before speaking of euthanasia. As I have always said, the living will is something that gives peace of mind to all. If a patient fills out a living-will and gives their indication of what they require, the doctor will know what the patients wishes are precisely, as it is written black on white.

A living will is a written consent form which allows a terminally ill patient to decide not to receive treatment, should their state deteriorate to unmanageable levels.

Like that, the next of kin do not have to decide on behalf of the patient, and the patients can decide for themselves. Everything is written and confirmed from before, whether the person wishes to receive treatment or not when reaching a certain stage. This already takes place indirectly anyway.

Mr Formosa continued: In many cases, at least with regard to ALS sufferers, patients lose hope because they dont have adequate care, or rather the means to access adequate care. For example in my case, if I didnt have certain things, I would be much more negative.

So for those people living with terminal illness, who look at life in a very negative way and are suffering, I believe that everything should be done in order to improve that quality of life. I would try to leave the issue of euthanasia as the last option.

As long as a person can communicate their message in some shape or form, I believe that person can still do a lot. When a person has literally no way of communicating with the world, then the situation becomes much more difficult. As long as I have some strength left in my body, I always want to work in favour of life.

Look at that Italian guy, who became paralyzed, he is blind, and is enduring endless suffering. In that case, the scope for life is greatly diminished. I believe that we are jumping the gun when we speak of euthanasia in a number of specific cases, such as mine. Certain problems can be tackled through medical interventions, and we should fight to get more solutions.

If a person wants euthanasia, nobody can really control that situation, it is an individual decision.

ALS respite home

Last Friday, Mr Formosa, through the popular PBS programmeXarabank,managed to raise over 900,000 in order for the Foundation to realise its dream of setting up a specially equipped respite home for ALS sufferers.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat announced that the government will cover the annual expenses of the home.

Yesterday, President Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca, through the Malta Community Chest Fund (MCCF), presented Mr Formosa with a cheque worth 10,000 in aid of the Malta ALS Foundation. Speaking at the press conference, Mr Formosa had said that he hopes the project will be able to give ALS sufferers some genuine hope and rest, and that they may receive treatment and care in a place specially equipped for the requirements of such patients. He expressed hope that at some point a cure would be found for the tragic illness.

Asked what his chances are of being able to see his dream project completed, Mr Formosa bravely said: Well, I used to work in iGaming, so I look at it as a game of odds. If I had to place a bet, it would be leaning more towards the side of me not living to see this project completed. It would be really difficult to see it done, but obviously I will do everything in my power to see it progress as much as possible. This project has given me peace of mind, in the sense that, with or without me, this project is going to happen and funds have been allocated, so that other ALS sufferers will have everything they need to improve the quality of their lives.

Here is the original post:

Euthanasia should be a last resort Bjorn Formosa, ALS sufferer - Malta Independent Online