Medicine

Scotland's deceptive euthanasia bill redefines terminal illness to include people with disabilities.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Thu, 03/28/2024 - 19:54
Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Scottish ParliamentOn March 28, 2024, Liam McArthur (LibDem) MSP introduced the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill bill that is expected to receive its first debate sometime this fall in Scotland's parliament.

The language of legislation is everything.

McArthur's euthanasia bill is deceptive because it redefines language to allow for euthanasia of people with disabilities who are not terminally ill and it provides full legal immunity to doctors or nurse practitioners who are willing to participate in the act. 

I was recently in Scotland meeting MSP's and sharing Canada's experience with euthanasia. Many of the MSP's had been lobbied by members of Dying in Dignity who told them that Scotland will not have the same experience with euthanasia as Canada. I told them that Canadians were told, during Canada's euthanasia debate, were told the same thing concerning the experience in the Netherlands or Belgium. The reality is that Canada is worse than those jurisdictions in many ways.

Getting to the crux of the bill.

McArthur claims that the bill is limited to terminally ill people. In fact the bill does not require that the person have a terminal illness. The Bill redefines terminal illness in the following manner:

For the purposes of this Act, a person is terminally ill if they have an advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unable to recover and that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death.

McArthur redefines terminal illness to include people with irremediable medical conditions or people with disabilities. By redefining terminology McArthur can claim to limit euthanasia to terminally ill people while allowing euthanasia for people with disabilities who are not terminally ill.

McArthur's bill is not limited to assisted suicide. McArthur's bill uses the term assistance to end their own life, but it does not limit the act to assisted suicide. Instead it employs the statement -- uses the substance.

Nowhere in the bill does it state that the person must self-ingest or "take the substance." Even in the declaration it states: "I wish to be provided assistance to die" but it does not define it as self ingesting.

McArthur's euthanasia bill does not limit the participation to physicians. The bill refers to registered medical practitioners, medical practitioners and health professionals but it doesn't differentiate them and then it defines health professionals as:

(a) a registered medical practitioner, (b) a registered nurse, (c) a registered pharmacist (within the meaning of section 108(1) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978), 

Under McArthur's bill it would be impossible to prosecute medical practitioners who have approved and participated in a euthanasia death outside of the parameters or "spirit" of the law. The bill only requires that the medical practitioner be "of the opinion" that the person meets the criteria of the law.

The same term "of the opinion" is used in Canada's euthanasia law. Because the law only requires the medical practitioner to be "of the opinion," when a case, such as Donna Duncan's was investigated, the final determination was that nothing was done outside of the law. It is impossible to prosecute a medical practioner when all they need to be is "of the opinion" that the person fits the criteria of the law. This gives medical practitioners full immunity when killing their patients.

McArthur's "assisted dying" bill claims to legalize assisted suicide for terminally ill adults.

In reality McArthur's bill legalizes euthanasia (homicide) and assisted suicide for people who are not required to be terminally ill and might have an illness or condition (disability) from which they are unable to recover.

By redefining language McArthur can claim that he has introduced a "tight" bill with strong safeguards when in fact he has introduced a wide bill that allows doctors and nurse practitioners to kill disabled people who are not terminally ill.

Categories: All, Health, Medicine

Gloria’s Surrogacy Story: From Contract to Conception

For Gloria, “once contracts were completed” the intended parents, “very quickly changed their personality” and Gloria wanted to back out, reaching out to her caseworker (recall the support person) multiple times, but Gloria felt nothing but pressure to keep going:  

And as much as I wanted to back out, the agency then starts to pressure you into not backing out… I had called the caseworker multiple times saying, you know, I just don’t think I can go through with this and I was constantly threatened with breach of contract and ‘you’re going to have to pay this back. You’re going to have to pay the lawyer fees, the health insurance policy, and the medical clearance back’. So, I mean, I felt like I had no choice but to continue. That only got worse as the pregnancy progressed.

Feeling pressured, Gloria continued and an embryo created from a “donor” egg and the intended father’s sperm was transferred into Gloria’s womb. The perfect example of third-party reproduction where two different women are used to create a child for someone else, truly muddying the waters of lineage and origin for the child in question and increasing the risk of health complications in life for both women. This article won’t get into specific risks  for egg-donors or the ethical problems of such a practice, but readers should be well aware that women have lost their fertility and lives “donating” eggs to “families in need”. Further, surrogate mothers are often ill-informed about the risks of carrying a child from a “donated” egg. 

Two things stick out to Gloria about the embryo transfer. First, she was misled about the number of available embryos the IPs had available. Some IPs have more than one embryo transferred at a time into the womb of the surrogate to improve success, increasing the chance for multiples and also  increasing the risk of complications to the surrogate mother and children she carries. Other IPs only transfer one embryo at a time, but have embryos waiting on ice to use in case of failure.  “It’s always nerve wracking, and it was more nerve wracking because I hadn’t been told that this couple only had two embryos created.”  In other words, there were only two chances for Gloria to become pregnant; Gloria was told they had six. Therefore, if the IPs needed to create more embryos, Gloria would have to wait and be locked into a contract while waiting, a process that can take up to a year or more. Bottom line, Gloria was lied to.

 Secondly, “embryo transfer day was the first time meeting the intended father in person” and although the transfer went well, a private interaction with the intended father left her “mortified”, “violated” and “uncomfortable”.

 And that is really the moment I truly realized that I should have gone with my gut. Like this journey is only going to get worse. I immediately came home and I called the caseworker, aka my support person, and she laughed it off. She said, ‘he’s just being silly. Ignore it.’

Gloria certainly didn’t laugh it off, but she had no choice but to continue. The transfer was a success. She was pregnant. 

This is part three of a five part series. Over the several weeks we will be releasing a write-up based off of our exclusive interview with Gloria. 

Watch the full interview with Gloria on our YouTube channel.

The post Gloria’s Surrogacy Story: From Contract to Conception appeared first on The Center for Bioethics & Culture Network.

Categories: All, Lay, Medicine

Jersey euthanasia proposal is not limited to terminally ill people.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Wed, 03/27/2024 - 21:50
Jersey proposal will lead to similar horrific euthanasia deaths as has happened in Canada.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On March 22, 2024 a proposal for legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide in Jersey was released in preparation for a debate on the proposal that is scheduled to occur on May 21, 2-24. 

The proposal claims to be limited to people in certain limited circumstances but upon further examination, it is clear that the proposal is not limited to terminally ill people and the definitions within the proposal would open the door to a Canadian style law.

The Jersey proposal states:

The law will set out the eligibility criteria for accessing assisted dying.

A person must meet all the eligibility criteria. They must:have been diagnosed with either:
  • a terminal physical medical condition, known as Route 1 - terminal illness
  • an incurable physical condition, causing unbearable suffering, known as Route 2 - unbearable suffering
  • have decision-making capacity
  • have a voluntary, settled and informed wish to end their own life 
  • be at least 18 years of age
  • have been ordinarily resident in Jersey for at least 12 months
Route 1: terminal illness

To be eligible under Route 1, the person must have been diagnosed with a terminal physical medical condition that: 
  • is expected to cause death within 6 months, or within 12 months if diagnosed with a neurodegenerative condition such as Parkinson’s disease or Motor Neurone Disease
  • is causing, or is expected to cause unbearable suffering that cannot be alleviated in a manner the person deems tolerable
Route 2: unbearable suffering
  • To be eligible under Route 2, the person must have been diagnosed with an incurable physical medical condition that is causing unbearable suffering that cannot be alleviated in a manner the person deems tolerable.
Route 1 is not necessarily based on having a terminal illness since, similar to other western jurisdictions, a person is not required to try effective medical treatment. Therefore a person who is an insulin dependent diabetic would qualify to be killed.

Route 2 opens the door to Canadian style euthanasia because the person is not terminally ill be is experiencing unbearable suffering. The Route 2 definition (diagnosed with an incurable physical medical condition) includes nearly everyone with a chronic disability.

When reading the proposal it states:
  • (iii) that, further to the provisions of paragraph (b) where a person has a terminal physical medication condition, ‘Route 1 – terminal illness’, the minimum timeframe between a person’s first formal request for an assisted death and the administration of the assisted dying substance will be 14 days, except for when the person’s life expectancy is less than 14 days when there will be no minimum timeframe; 
  • (iv) that, further to the provisions of paragraph (c), where assisted dying is permitted for people who have an incurable physical condition but where there is no reasonable expectation of death within the specified timeframe - ‘Route 2 – unbearable suffering’, the minimum timeframe between a person’s first formal request for an assisted death and the administration of the assisted dying substance will be 90 days; 
Canadians with disabilities are being approved for euthanasia based on having an incurable physical condition that is causing suffering. These people are often asking for euthanasia based on poverty, homelessness or an inability to receive medical treatment, but they are being approved for euthanasia based on having an incurable physical condition. Similar to Canada, the Jersey proposal is suggesting a 90 day waiting period for killing people who are not terminally ill.

The recent case of the 27-year-old autistic woman who was approved for euthanasia is another example of the flaws within the law that could happen in Jersey, if this proposal is accepted. The 27-year-old autistic woman was originally turned down for euthanasia but when she requested a second time she included within her request that she was experiencing unbearable suffering. It is impossible to determine if someone is not experiencing unbearable suffering.

The term unbearable suffering is completely subjective.

The Jersey proposal does recommend that a Tribunal should approve euthanasia for people who are not terminally ill. A Tribunal seems better than the Canadian law, nonetheless, it is equally impossible for a Tribunal to determine if a person has suicidal ideation and claiming to have unbearable suffering to be approved for death or a person actually has unbearable suffering.

The Jersey proposal clearly advocates for both euthanasia (homicide) and assisted suicide. The proposal states:
(x) the assisted dying substance that ends a person’s life may be – i. self-administered by the person; or 
ii. administered by the Administering Practitioner; 
Administered by the practitioner means the practitioner directly causes the death (homicide). 

The Jersey States Assembly needs to understand why the Canadian law has become so extreme and then to reject the Jersey euthanasia proposal.

Some might say that Jersey should simply amend their proposal, but when considering the Canadian experience, once the door opens to killing by euthanasia, that based on equality and discrimination, the law will quickly expand to ensure that every Jersey citizen has equal access to being killed.
Categories: All, Health, Medicine

EPC Zoom event examining the growth of assisted suicide in the Western US.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Wed, 03/27/2024 - 20:27

This Zoom event will focus on Oregon, California, Washington state and Hawaii.

Alex Schadenberg
Alex Schadenberg, the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will be providing a Western US assisted suicide Zoom event update on April 8 at 7:15 pm (Pacific Time).

Register in advance for this meeting (Registration Link). 

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting. 

This event will uncover the incremental growth of assisted suicide, a reality that the assisted suicide lobby denies in states when they are trying to legalize assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg will examine the increasing number of assisted suicide deaths and the expansions to the assisted suicide laws in Oregon, California, Washington state and Hawaii and provide an analysis of the data and the assisted suicide expansion bills.

There will be a specific focus on recent legislation such as Oregon removing it's assisted suicide law residency requirement to permit suicide tourism and California Bill HB 1196, a bill that would blur the distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia (homicide) in California.

Register in advance for this meeting (Registration Link).

Links to recent articles on these topics:

Categories: All, Health, Medicine

Judge rules that a 27-year-old autistic woman in Calgary can die by euthanasia.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Tue, 03/26/2024 - 18:04

Her father claims that she is otherwise healthy and does not qualify to be killed under the law.Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

CBC News reporter, Meghan Grant published an article yesterday explaining that a Calgary judge ruled that a 27-year-old can go ahead with MAID death despite her father's concerns. There is a publication ban on the names of the participants.

This case is very close to me since I have an autistic son.

The judge removed the temporary injunction on January 31, 2024 that prevented the 27-year-old autistic woman in Calgary who lives with her parents. Grant reports:

While Justice Colin Feasby acknowledged the "profound grief" that W.V. would suffer with the death of his child, he ruled the loss of M.V.'s autonomy was more important.

"M.V.'s dignity and right to self-determination outweighs the important matters raised by W.V. and the harm that he will suffer in losing M.V.," wrote Feasby in his 34-page written decision issued Monday.

"Though I find that W.V. has raised serious issues, I conclude that M.V.'s autonomy and dignity interests outweigh competing considerations."

Justice Feasby decided that an interim injunction would be held for another 30 days to provide time for a possible appeal. Grant reported:

Feasby's decision sets aside an interim injunction the father was granted the day before M.V.'s assisted death was set to take place in the family's home.

But the judge also issued a 30-day stay of his decision so that W.V. can take the case to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which means the interim injunction will remain in place for the next month.

The daughter did not bring forth evidence proving that her health condition would qualify her for euthanasia since her defence was based on that it is none of her father's business.

The father brought evidence to the court to prove that the daughter is generally healthy. Grant reported.

But W.V. believes his daughter "is vulnerable and is not competent to make the decision to take her own life," according to Feasby's summary of the father's position. 

"He says that she is generally healthy and believes that her physical symptoms, to the extent that she has any, result from undiagnosed psychological conditions."

Her only known diagnoses described in court earlier this month are autism and ADHD.

The daughter had been approved for euthanasia by one doctor and turned down by another doctor. The father took issue with the role of the Alberta Health Service in finding the second doctor to approve the death. Grant reports:

Her father took issue with the third doctor who signed off on M.V.'s MAID approval "because he was not independent or objective."

At the March 11 hearing, Sarah Miller, counsel for the father, called the situation "a novel issue for Alberta" because the province operates a system where there is no appeal process and no means of reviewing a person's MAID approval.

Justice Feasby did order an assessment of the Alberta Health Service's role. Grant reports:

While Feasby found the "court cannot review a MAID applicant's decision-making or the clinical judgment of the doctors and nurse practitioners," he did rule the actions of the MAID navigator — a person who works for AHS and helps co-ordinate a patient's eligibility assessment — can be examined. 

Feasby ruled the courts can review whether the AHS MAID navigator followed its own policy. 

"There can be no doubt that it is a serious issue," wrote Feasby. "The AHS MAID policy is part of the legal framework governing medical assistance in dying and, as such, is a matter of life and death."

Nonetheless, Feasby only granted a 30 day continuance of the injunction based on a possible appeal, he did not extend the injunction until the role of the Alberta Health Service is examined.

Canada's euthanasia law was not designed to protect vulnerable people. The law is designed to protect the doctors who are willing to kill.

Categories: All, Health, Medicine

Message to Scotland's MSP's. Don't buy into McArthur's "bait and switch" assisted suicide bill.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Mon, 03/25/2024 - 20:34

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I was recently speaking to MSP's in Scotland about the upcoming assisted suicide bill sponsored by Liam McArthur (LibDem MSP). 

During those meetings many of the MSP's suggested that McArthur was promising a "heavier safeguarded" model than previous euthanasia bills that were debated in Scotland. 

My response was that it didn't matter how "heavily safeguarded" the bill is because the goal of the euthanasia lobby is to get the bill passed and expand it later.

McArthur was interviewed on March 24 by BBC Scotland on The Sunday Show where McArthur explained that the new bill will be released on Thursday March 28. McArthur stated the following about the proposed bill:

"I detect a real shift in the political mood, driven in a large part by witnessing countries and states across the world introducing heavily safeguarded provisions of the kind I'm looking to introduce here in Scotland."

He said his proposals would require diagnosis of a terminal illness by two separate doctors and a 14-day cooling off period after which a medical substance could be supplied, to be self-administered.

The reality is that McArthur is describing a bill that is similar to the original Oregon assisted suicide law, a law that was expanded in 2019 and further expanded in 2023.

McArthur stated that the mood in Scotland has shifted based on "heavily safeguarded provisions" but the provisions that he is referring to do not remain in the Oregon or other assisted suicide law provisions in the United States.

While in Scotland several of the MSP's told me that McArthur had invited them to go to California on a "fact finding" trip. California is the prime example of a state that has expanded its law since legalization. 

Recently Senator Blakespear in California introduced Bill SB 1196 an assisted suicide bill that would change the law to specifically allow utilization of the lethal poison by IV (intravenous). (my article on SB 1196)

In 2016 California legalized assisted suicide. California expanded the law in 2021 when it passed Bill SB 380. SB 380 reduced the waiting period from 15 days to 48 hours, it eliminated the final attestation, and it forced doctors who oppose assisted suicide to participate in the law.

In September, 2022, U.S. District Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha ruled that California Senate Bill 380, which amended the End of Life Option Act (assisted suicide law) in California, violated the First Amendment rights of doctors by requiring them to participate in assisted suicide. Aenlle-Rocha granted a preliminary injunction barring the state from compelling health care providers to document a patient’s request for assisted suicide. (my article on the decision).

In other words, McArthur is basing his "heavily safeguarded provisions" on an American law that originally contained those provisions but has been expanded and it may be expanded again this year.

Recently I published an article titled The assisted suicide lobby wants to legalize assisted suicide and expand it later

In that article I explain that the assisted suicide lobby claim that no legislative creep exists and yet in the past few years existing assisted suicide laws have been expanded in nearly every state that have legalized assisted suicide by: reducing or eliminating waiting periods, allowing non-doctors to participate in assisted suicide, allowing assisted suicide approvals by Telehealth, expanding the meaning of terminal illness and removing the state residency requirement.

Assisted suicide law expansion bills have been passed in California (2021), Hawai'i (2023), Oregon (2019, 2023), Vermont (2022, 2023) and Washington State (2023). There are several assisted suicide expansion bills being debated in 2024.

For instance, Colorado assisted suicide expansion Bill SB 068 would expand the assisted suicide law by: permitting non-physicians to prescribe the lethal poison, reduces the waiting period from 15 days to 48 hours and it allows the 48 hour waiting period to be waived.

In January Josh Elliott, a three-term member of the Connecticut House, and a sponsor of previous assisted suicide bills was interviewed by Paul Bass for the New Haven Independent on January 4, 2024. Bass reported Elliott as wanting to get a "heavily safeguarded" assisted suicide bill passed and then make amendments later. Since Elliott admitting to his "bait and switch" tactic, 2024 was the first year in the past eleven where no assisted suicide bill was introduced in Connecticut.

J.M. Sorrell, Executive Director of Massachusetts Death with Dignity, was quoted on a similar bill as saying,

“Once you get something passed, you can always work on amendments later.”

My message to Scotland's MSP's is don't buy into McArthur's "bait and switch" assisted suicide bill. 

McArthur realizes that the majority of the MSP's will not support a Canadian style euthanasia bill so he has decided to get there slowly by first legalizing an Oregon style bill and then expanding it later. The reality is, even the American assisted suicide bills have already been expanded

Categories: All, Health, Medicine

Thailand’s Colossal Mistake: Returning to Reproductive Tourism

The news out of Thailand breaks my heart. Since 2015, Thailand has rightly protected its women and children by closing its doors to international surrogacy arrangements. Now, almost ten years later, news has spread that the government plans to reverse course as part of a wider reform of regulations on assisted reproduction. 

As one group on Twitter wrote, “This is a colossal mistake — it will see Thailand becoming the next big surrogacy destination, Thai women exploited and babies trafficked.” We agree whole-heartedly. 

I am reminded of the George Santayana quote, “Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.” Thailand banned international surrogacy in 2015 after a series of scandals in the fertility tourism industry. One of the most controversial surrogacy cases came out of Thailand prior to the ban and involved a little boy known as Baby Gammy. Baby Gammy was born with Down syndrome and was abandoned by his Australian “intended parents” after birth. The surrogate mother ended up raising Gammy, and applied for custody of his twin sister as well (her request was denied). Also of note in the case, it was discovered that the intended father, David Farnell, was/is a child sex offender. The other case was dubbed a “baby factory” scandal  involving Mitsutoki Shigeta, a Japanese businessman, using Thai surrogate mothers to father his goal of 10-15 children a year. It’s clear to me that Thailand has either forgotten its past or failed to learn from it and is now bound to repeat it. No doubt, it will become a booming fertility tourism industry, but it will be plagued once again with controversy and heartache. 

Some claim that legalizing reproductive tourism will help with the current problem of illegal surrogacy arrangements and the smuggling of embryos, sperm, and eggs into and out of the country. This logic is flawed as legalization does not decrease the instance of illegal activity. Further, there are many instances, like organ selling, that occur illegally and are still prohibited. 

Currently, surrogacy in Thailand is legal for Thai couples that have been married at least three years where one spouse holds Thai nationality. While we hold that all forms of surrogacy, even for married couples, ought to be banned, the move to revert back to regressive and harmful practices of cross-border surrogacy is a dangerous step in the wrong direction.

As stated, this push to regress back in time is part of a wider reform. Thailand officials “will also push for amendments to the act to, for example, allow women’s biological relatives aged 20-40 to donate eggs, and to permit women older than 55 to arrange for surrogacy mothers…” The proposed changes will be submitted for approval later this year. I wonder how long it will take for them to realize the mistake they are making? 

 

The post Thailand’s Colossal Mistake: Returning to Reproductive Tourism appeared first on The Center for Bioethics & Culture Network.

Categories: All, Lay, Medicine

Maine assisted suicide report - the law lacks effective oversight.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Fri, 03/22/2024 - 17:04

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An article by Jon Chrisos that was published on March 19, 2024 by WTMW News states that there were 117 assisted suicide deaths in the first four years of the Maine assisted suicide law. While the article by Chrisos promotes assisted suicide, it encouraged me to take a deeper look into the Maine assisted suicide data.

Since the issue of assisted suicide concerns life and death decisions one would think that the law would have a high degree of oversight. The 2022 Maine assisted suicide report states:

There were 61 patients who started the process to self-direct end of life care; however, two patients died before making their written request and another did not complete the process after making the first oral request. The remaining 58 patients met all the requirements of the Act. At the time of this report, four death certificates could not be found on record and there was no record of any person rescinding the request. It was confirmed with the attending physician that these patients are still alive.

Of the 58 people who received the lethal poison, there were 4 people with no death certificate.

A little further down on the page the report states that of the 54 people who died (58 - 4) 40 died by assisted suicide, 13 died a natural death and the cause of death was unknown in 1 death.

There is 1 case where a person was prescribed the lethal poison and died but the cause of death was unknown. When the cause of death is unknown the person may have died by assisted suicide or a natural death.

The same reporting problem exists in every state that has legalized assisted suicide. My recent article on the Oregon 2023 assisted suicide report indicates that 367 people reportedly died by assisted suicide in Oregon and the ingestion status was unknown in 141 cases. Therefore the Oregon data indicates that 141 people received the lethal poison and their ingestion status was unknown. The report then states that of the 141 people, who's ingestion status is unknown, 41 were known to have died but their ingestion status was still unknown.

Did these people die by assisted suicide or by a natural death?

One would think that a high degree of oversight is necessary when lethal poison is prescribed to a person with the intention of causing their death. 

Whether it be one person or 41 people who died, when the ingestion status is unknown, it is a serious concern and it indicates that the law lacks effective oversight.

Categories: All, Health, Medicine

Sponsor Alex Schadenberg in his 30 Km run

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Thu, 03/21/2024 - 19:27

Alex Schadenberg is running the Hamilton Around the Bay 30 km Road Race on March 24, 2024. 

The Around the Bay Road Race is the oldest road race in North America. It is also one of the most grueling road races with its series of steep hills.

Help Alex Schadenberg with his 30 Km run by sponsoring him with a donation to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC).

You can make your donation online (Donation Link).

You can make your donation by calling the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348 or send a cheque to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Box 25033, London ON N6C 6A8.

You can send e-transfers to info@epcc.ca.

If you are willing to collect donations for Alex's run then contact the office to request sponsor cards at: office@epcc.ca or 1-877-439-3348.

Last year Alex raised by running the Around the Bay run, around $17,000 for the vital work of EPC. This year Alex hopes to raise at least $20,000 for EPC.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is a not for profit corporation but it is not a charity.

Categories: All, Health, Medicine

Euthanasia Poisons People and Society

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Thu, 03/21/2024 - 17:46

The following article was published on March 19, 2024 by The Human Life Review.

By Wesley J Smith

In my first-ever anti-euthanasia article, published in Newsweek in 1993, I described the suicide of my friend Frances, who killed herself under the influence of the euthanasia-promoting Hemlock Society (since rechristened Compassion and Choices). Toward the end of the piece, I predicted what would happen should assisted suicide become legal and normalized:

The descent to depravity is reached by small steps. First, suicide is promoted as a virtue. Vulnerable people like Frances become early casualties. Then follows mercy killing of the terminally ill. From there, it’s a hop, skip and a jump to killing people who don’t have a good “quality” of life, perhaps with the prospect of organ harvesting thrown in as a plum to society.1

I believed my conclusion would be uncontroversial. After all, it was only logical. Once the act of eliminating suffering by eliminating the sufferer is redefined from a crime to a beneficent medical intervention, there is no limiting principle. Terminal illness might be the gateway excuse for legalization, but since the real issue is the best response to suffering, I could not see how access would not expand continually over time. After all, many people who are not dying suffer more intensely and for a longer period than those who are. Moreover, once the law accepts the premise that some people are better off dead, a utilitarian calculus naturally follows that sees hastening deaths as beneficial—a “plum to society,” as I put it.

Boy, was I wrong! I received more than 150 letters reacting to the column. Most were hateful screeds. (Remember, this was before email, when my detractors had to pay the price of a stamp to wish me a slow and painful death from cancer.) Beyond the hate, almost all of my correspondents accused me of engaging in alarmist slippery slope argumentation. Even those who agreed that assisted suicide should not be legalized blithely assured me that it would never come to organ harvesting or mercy killing of those without a good “quality of life.”

Now, more than 30 years later, the facts are in. Euthanasia and/or assisted suicide has been legalized throughout the Western world—including in Australia, New Zealand, Colombia, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Germany (by court ruling), Austria (by court ruling), and (most worrying of all to us in the United States) Canada. In the United States, assisted suicide is now legal in nine states and the District of Columbia. Tens of thousands of people throughout the world have had their deaths facilitated. And—just as I predicted—the practice of what death activists euphemistically call “medical aid in dying” (MAiD) has not only increased in numbers but expanded exponentially in scope, in some places including the instrumental use of those whose deaths have been facilitated. Indeed and alas, rather than being alarmist, my long-ago warning proved prophetic.

Euthanasia without Brakes

Most of the media are euthanasia-friendly, preferring to report on the issue in the glowing, uncritical language of empowered patients “dying peacefully on their own terms,” supported by loving family who are grateful that grandma is no longer suffering.2 In contrast, euthanasia abuses and horror stories—an ever-growing list—generally receive little focused media attention and remain outside the notice of people not engaged with the issue. But we now have enough experience with euthanasia/assisted suicide to demonstrate that the “slippery slope” is not only real but has become an avalanche of abuse and abandonment.

Space does not permit a complete recitation of the known examples of abuse or neglect associated with legalized euthanasia. But the following recitation demonstrates the danger:

Euthanasia “Patients” as “Organ Farms”: People killed by euthanasia are increasingly being looked upon by doctors and society as splendid sources of organs. Not only that, but the phenomenon of conjoining euthanasia with organ harvesting—becoming relatively common now in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada—is celebrated in the media. Thus, the Ottawa Citizen recently depicted the practice as “a growing boon to organ donation,” sighing:

Ontarians who opt for medically assisted deaths (MAiD) are increasingly saving or improving other people’s lives by also including organ and tissue donation as part of their final wishes. According to Trillium Gift of Life Network, which oversees organ and tissue donation in Ontario, the 113 MAiD-related donations in 2019 accounted for five per cent of overall donations in Ontario, a share that has also been increasing.3

Some readers might be asking, “What’s the problem? These are people who want to die, so why not allow them to donate their organs?”

The question itself demonstrates the danger. Imagine a healthy suicidal person asking to be killed and organ-harvested because he doesn’t believe his life to be worth living and hopes that through his death others—who want to live—can be saved. Would we allow that? No! (At least not yet.) Rather, the humane response would be to offer the person mental health support and suicide prevention to get past the darkness.

Now, notice the difference when a patient qualifies for euthanasia. Not only is suicide prevention not engaged, but in Ontario, once the patient is accepted for a lethal injection, the death doctor informs Trillium Gift of Life Network. In turn, Trillium contacts the soon-to-be-killed person to ask for their heart, liver, lungs, and kidneys. Again, from the Ottawa Citizen story:

“As part of high-quality end-of life care, we make sure that all patients and families are provided with the information they need and the opportunity to make a decision on whether they wish to make a donation,” Gavsie says. “That just follows the logical protocol under the law and the humane approach for those who are undergoing medical assistance in dying. And it’s the right thing to do for those on the wait list.”4

This is the opposite of “high-quality end-of-life care.” Canada does not restrict euthanasia to the terminally ill, but may include people with disabilities, chronic illnesses—and, beginning this year, the physically healthy experiencing mental illness. (The mentally ill are already eligible for euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands.) Thus, many euthanized organ donors would not be dying but for being lethally injected. Indeed, some might live indefinitely.

But because they are qualified to be killed under the law, their organs come to the forefront of policy. An article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal  recently updated the Association’s “guidelines” for conjoining euthanasia and organ harvesting when the patient is not terminally ill—these are called “Track 2” patients.5 (There are even more relaxed standards for “Track 1” patients, those whose deaths are “reasonably foreseeable.” Due to space considerations, I focus below primarily on Track 2 patients.) From “Deceased Organ and Tissue Donation After Medical Assistance in Dying” (my emphasis):

All Track 2 patients who are potentially eligible for organ donation should be approached for first-person consent for donation after MAiD once MAiD eligibility has been confirmed, regardless of when their eligibility for MAiD is confirmed within the 90-day assessment period.

This means that the death doctor is to contact the organ-donation association, which in turn will contact the suicidal patient and ask for his or her organs (which, as we have seen, already happens in Ontario).

The recommendations also suggest allowing a soon-to-be-euthanized patient to determine who receives organs:

Organ donation organizations and transplantation programs should develop a policy on directed deceased donation for patients pursuing MAiD, in alignment with the directed donation principles and practices that are in place for living donation in their jurisdiction  . . . Directed donation should not proceed if there is indication of monetary exchange or similar valuable consideration or coercion involved in the decision to pursue directed donation. The intended recipient in a directed deceased donation case should be a family member or “close friend”—an individual with whom the donor or donor’s family has had a long-standing emotional relationship.  . . . The intended recipient must be on the current transplant waiting list or meet criteria for the same  . . . Transplantation will proceed only if the donor organ is medically compatible with the intended recipient.

Do you see the danger? The need for a transplant by a medically compatible loved one could become the motive for asking for euthanasia.

The article grouses that waiting for the patient to initiate organ donation conversations means “missed opportunities”:

Given the variation in practices relating to both MAiD and donation after MAiD across Canada, some jurisdictions may be unable to apply the updated guidance. Specifically, in jurisdictions reliant on patient initiation of donation after MAiDlack of awareness of the option may result in missed opportunities. Jurisdictions without central coordination of MAiD may experience similar challenges. There are also jurisdictional variations in the education, training and support provided to coordinators who facilitate donation after MAiD.

Now, we can see that once the patient is accepted for medicalized homicide, his or her intrinsic human dignity is diminished—in at least some sense—from that of an equally valuable person into that of a mere natural resource usable for the benefit of others. In other words, the life, wellbeing, and future potential of the patient become secondary considerations to the potential benefit of garnering organs for other patients who want to live.

The impact of this dehumanizing force of gravity became blaringly clear in a recent case out of Belgium. A story in Le Soir recounted what happened when a 16-year-old girl with a brain tumor asked to be euthanized and have her organs harvested.6 Doctors agreed. At that point, she mattered less than the donation. The girl was sedated and intubated in an ICU for 36 hours before being euthanized and harvested.

The story lauds the girl as selfless. But it seems to me there is a terrible dark side to the tragedy. First, this was a minor terrified of decline who stated that by donating organs she believed she could do some good. But for that option, she might not have asked to die. Second, as far as we know, the girl wasn’t provided with suicide prevention nor assured that palliative care could alleviate her symptoms. Finally, the lengthy sedation to which she was subjected was primarily administered to allow her organs to be tested and to allow time to find compatible recipients. In other words, at least in some sense, once the girl asked to donate her organs, they became the paramount consideration.

Euthanasia as a Substitute for Care: When I first began my work against euthanasia and assisted suicide in 1993, both euthanasia and assisted suicide were permitted in the Netherlands under a decriminalized system that allowed doctors to end the lives of patients so long as there was (supposedly) no other means of preventing suffering and the death doctor reported the details to the authorities.7 (That system is now defunct. The Netherlands formally legalized euthanasia in 2003.)

When researching my first book on the issue, I came across data demonstrating that hospice was virtually unknown in the Netherlands. One reason for this deficiency was the Dutch medical system, which depends on general practitioners making house calls and has fewer specialists than the American system. But, I wrote, that might not have been the only reason:

The widespread availability of euthanasia in the Netherlands may be another reason for the stunted growth of the Dutch hospice movement. As one Dutch doctor is reported to have said, “Why should I worry about palliation when I have euthanasia?”8

In other words, once medicalized killing becomes normalized, it could eventually become a measure of first resort rather than last.

That abandoning paradigm can be seen playing out increasingly in Canada in recent years:

    • A VA counselor suggested euthanasia to a military veteran burdened by PTSD.9

    • A disabled woman with quadriplegia plans to be euthanized because she is destitute and it is easier and quicker to receive euthanasia than obtain disability benefits.10

    • A man with serious disabilities—refused coverage for independent living services—was told that Canadian Medicare would cover the costs of obtaining a lethal jab.11

    • A cancer patient decided to be euthanized because he couldn’t obtain the chemotherapy that would extend his life.12

    • Another cancer patient was offered euthanasia by her surgeon and told it would take months before she could see an oncologist. She chose instead to be treated in the USA.13

    • An elderly woman opted for euthanasia rather than be isolated from her family during a Covid lockdown. Her family was allowed to be with her when she died but would not have been allowed to visit her room if she continued living.14

Canada isn’t alone in this. A report out of the Netherlands finds that autistic people are being euthanized in lieu of being provided proper care. From the AP story:

Several people with autism and intellectual disabilities have been legally euthanized in the Netherlands in recent years because they said they could not lead normal lives, researchers have found. The cases included five people younger than 30 who cited autism as either the only reason or a major contributing factor for euthanasia, setting an uneasy precedent that some experts say stretches the limits of what the law originally intended Eight said the only causes of their suffering were factors linked to their intellectual disability or autism—social isolation, a lack of coping strategies or an inability to adjust their thinking.15

The same paradigm is seen in Belgium, where a healthy elderly couple received joint euthanasia deaths out of fear of future loneliness caused by widowhood—a killing arranged by the couple’s own children.16 A suicidal anorexia patient, despairing over being the object of sexual predation by her former psychiatrist, was euthanized by her new psychiatrist.17 A transgendered patient despairing over the adverse results of transition surgery was killed rather than helped to go on living.18 These kinds of cases are becoming ubiquitous.

Enough. The unintended cruelty of legalized euthanasia is now quite clear. It is about “choice,” they say. It is about compassion, they say. Bah. That is just a veneer. Medicalized killing eventually becomes a form of abandonment.

Future Concerns

The societal damage done by euthanasia expands exponentially as time passes and a nation’s population accepts doctor-hastened death as normal. Here are a few of the unfolding harms that have emerged recently.

Euthanasia Deaths, Going Up!: Euthanasia/assisted suicide is sold to a wary public as a last-resort option—a safety valve, if you will—to be rarely applied, and then only in cases of extremism. But in real life, hastened death tends to increase exponentially year by year. For example, in 1998—the first full year that assisted suicide in Oregon became legally available—the state reported 16 deaths from assisted suicide. In 2022, that number had risen to 278, with 431 prescriptions written.19

The Netherlands has experienced an even more dramatic increase. In 2004, 1886 people were killed by doctors. In 2021, the number had risen to 7,666. Even more notably, that number increased by more than a thousand in one year, with 8,720 lethal injections in 2022.20

Canada experienced the most startling death acceleration. The first year of full legalization, 2016, Canadian doctors killed 1,018 patients. The next year the total was 2,828. In 2018, it reached 4,493. In 2022, a horrifying 13,241 patients were killed.21 (If the same percentage of people were killed by doctors in the much more populous United States, that would amount to about 140,000 medical homicides annually.) And now that patients with clearly non-terminal conditions are killable in Canada, these numbers will undoubtedly rise to unprecedented levels going forward.

Follow the Money: There is a less visible but perhaps ultimately more dangerous force driving the euthanasia juggernaut: money. Whether in a socialized healthcare system like Canada’s, or one with free market elements and incentives as in the United States, once the most expensive-to-care-for patients can be killed—people with long-term chronic medical conditions, disabilities, or the frail elderly—it should become obvious that, over time, billions could be saved in the healthcare system.

This isn’t paranoia. Indeed, Derek Humphry, the co-founder of the Hemlock Society, made this point explicitly in his book (co-authored with Mary Clement) Freedom to Die: People, Politics and the Right to Die Movement. In a chapter entitled “The Unspoken Argument,” the euthanasia advocates write, “Elders or otherwise incurable people are often aware of the burdens—financial and otherwise—of their care.” They then get to the ultimate point:

A rational argument can be made for allowing PAS [physician-assisted suicide] in order to offset the amount society and family spend on the ill, as long as it is the voluntary wish of the mentally competent terminally ill and incurable adult. There will likely come a time when PAS becomes a commonplace occurrence for individuals who want to die and feel it is the right thing to do by their loved ones. There is no contradicting the fact that since the largest medical expenses are incurred in the final days and weeks of life, the hastened demise of people with only a short time left would free resources for others. Hundreds of billions of dollars could benefit those patients who not only can be cured but who also want to live.22

Canadians have already noted the costs being saved for their socialized system from legalizing euthanasia. Back in 2017, a study projected that Canada’s socialized medical system could save up to C$138.8 million annually by not treating patients (less C$1.1 million for the costs associated with euthanasia). It is worth noting that the authors based their cost-savings projections on more conservative practice than the country’s actual experience. They assumed that “40% of Canadians who choose medical assistance in dying would have their lives shortened by 1 week, and 60% of patients will have their lives shortened by 1 month.”23 In practice, many patients do not wait until the very end of their illnesses before being euthanized.

More recently, a 2020 projection found that if some 6,000 Canadians were to be euthanized under a proposed (and now in effect) expansion of death eligibility beyond “death being reasonably foreseeable,” the annual net savings would be C$149 million.24 But more than twice as many Canadians died by euthanasia than was predicted in 2022, with the total cost savings currently unknown. Moreover, with the elderly, people with disabilities, and those with chronic and (soon) mental illnesses now being euthanized, the cost savings will undoubtedly increase, providing a potential incentive to further normalize killing as a “medical treatment.”

Euthanasia Poisons a Nation’s Soul: Transforming killing from a negative into a beneficent means of eliminating suffering changes public morality. For example, when euthanasia began in the Netherlands, it was supposed to be strictly limited to cases of force majeure. But after decades of desensitizing the public to doctors causing death, the Dutch people now overwhelmingly support allowing euthanasia for what is known as a “completed life.” From the NL Times story:

A massive 80 percent of voters believe that people should be able to get help in dying when they feel they’ve come to the end of their life,Trouw reports based on a Kieskompas poll of almost 200,000 people. Only 10 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement that people who consider their lives complete should be able to end their lives with professional help. The other 10 percent of voters had no opinion on the matter.

The first focus of this idea are the elderly:

The [parliamentary] bill would allow people over 75 to decide when to die with professional help if they feel they’ve reached the end of a completed life. Added to the bill is a six-month process in which they have to meet with an “end-of-life counselor” at least three times.25

Note well that the concept of the “completed life” need not involve any physical illness, disabling condition, or psychiatric malady at all. People could decide they have lived long enough due to loneliness, boredom, fear of future widowhood, death of an adult child, dissatisfaction with living conditions, worries about being unproductive, you name it. In other words, “completed life” euthanasia would allow the healthy elderly to be terminated.

Moreover, in principle, why should eligibility be age-dependent? Once the concept of the “completed life” is accepted, why shouldn’t the death option be available to younger people? Indeed, doesn’t every suicidal person believe their useful life is completed? Again, as with many aspects of euthanasia, there is no effective limiting principle.

Meanwhile, in Canada, shockingly large percentages of people now support euthanasia as a remedy for the suffering caused by adverse social conditions! According to a recent poll, 27 percent of respondents strongly or moderately agree that euthanasia is acceptable for suffering caused by “poverty,” and 28 percent strongly or moderately agree that killing by doctors is acceptable for suffering caused by “homelessness.”26

Before the legalization of euthanasia, I’m confident that few Dutch would have supported allowing doctors to kill healthy geriatric patients—any more than (I hope) Americans would. But after decades of euthanasia normalization, only 10 percent think it would be wrong. And can we imagine more than one-quarter of Canadians supporting euthanasia as a remedy for homelessness if it had not already become widely accepted for the suffering caused by illness and disability? Do you see what I mean about how euthanasia is poisoning a nation’s soul?

“But Wesley,” some might say, “the same moral decay hasn’t happened in states that have legalized assisted suicide.” As a fact checker would put it, that’s partially true. People aren’t (yet) assisted in suicide for botched sex change surgeries or for having suffered sexual predation by their psychiatrist. But that shouldn’t make us sanguine. Almost every state that has legalized assisted suicide already has liberalized its regulations to allow easier access to doctor-prescribed death. Oregon and Vermont have done away with residency requirements, and some states even allow virtual assisted suicide, with doctors examining patients who want to die over the internet. Besides, the people of the United States have only nibbled at—but not yet swallowed— the snake’s proffered poison apple, which is why the death agenda has not yet swept the country. But if we ever do yield to the culture of death, the same tragic trajectory seen so vividly in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada will happen here. As I pointed out at the beginning of this essay, it’s only logical.

Conclusion

Euthanasia cannot ultimately be restricted only to the few for whom nothing but death can eliminate suffering. Once medicalized killing becomes normalized, the death agenda spreads, objectifies those who want to die, and corrupts public morality in ways that should shock the human conscience. The same progression will happen here too if we don’t change our current cultural trajectory. And many of those who dismiss the warnings contained in this article as alarmist will applaud when that dark time comes.

Those with eyes to see, let them see.

 

NOTES

1. Wesley J. Smith, “The Whispers of Strangers,” Newsweek, June 28, 1993. The Whispers of Strangers | Discovery Institute

2. Such articles are ubiquitous. See, for example, “Model Ali Tate Cutler’s Grandmother is Choosing to Die on Her Own Terms,” Yahoo News, May 25, 2023, Ali Tate Cutler grandmother dying by choice, MAID (yahoo.com).

3. Bruce Deachman, “Medically Assisted Deaths Prove a Growing Boon to Organ Donation in Ontario,” Ottawa Citizen, January 6, 2020.

4. Ibid.

5. Kim Wiebe MD, et. al., “Deceased Organ and Tissue Donation After Medical Assistance in Dying: 2023 Updated Guidance for Policy:” Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ 2023 June 26;195:E870-8. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.230108: Deceased organ and tissue donation after medical assistance in dying: 2023 updated guidance for policy (cmaj.ca)

6. Alain Lallemand, “Euthanasia: I’ve Had Enough. I Want to Die Helping People,” Le Soir, October 16, 2023 (Google translation).

7. For details on how this now-repealed system worked—and the abuses that resulted—see Wesley J. Smith, Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder (New York, Times Books, 1997).

8. Ibid, p. 231.

9. Michael Lee, “Canadian Soldier Suffering with PTSD Offered Euthanasia by Veterans Affairs,” Fox News, August 22, 2022. Canadian soldier suffering with PTSD offered euthanasia by Veterans Affairs (foxnews.com)

10. Tyler Cheese, “Quadriplegic Ontario Woman Considers Medically Assisted Dying Because of Long ODSP Wait Times,” CBC News, June 22, 2023.

11. CTV CA, “The Solution is Assisted Life: Offered Death, Terminally Ill Ontario Man Files Lawsuit,” March 15, 2018.

12. Katie DeRosa, “B.C. Man Opts for Medically Assisted Death After Cancer Treatment Delayed,” National Post, December 5, 2023.

13. Amy Judd and Kylie Stanton, “B.C. Woman Gets Surgery in U.S., Says Wait Times at Home Could Have Cost Her Life,” Global News, November 27, 2023.

14. CTV News, “Facing Another Retirement Home Lockdown, 90-Year-Old Woman Chooses Medically Assisted Death,” November 19, 2020.

15. Maria Cheng, “Some Dutch People Seeking Euthanasia Cite Autism or Intellectual Disabilities, Researchers Say,” Associated Press, June 28, 2023.

16. Simon Caldwell, “Elderly Couple to Die Together by Assisted Suicide Even Though They Are Not Ill,” Daily Mail, September 25, 2014.

17. Michael Cook, “Another Speedbump for Belgian Euthanasia,” Bioedge, February 8, 2013.

18. Damian Gayle, “Transsexual, 44, Elects to Die by Euthanasia After Botched Sex-Change Operation Turned Him Into a ‘Monster’,” Daily Mail, October 1, 2013.

19. Oregon Health Authority, Oregon Death with Dignity Act, 2022 Data Summary, March 8, 2023. DWDA 2022 Data Summary Report (oregon.gov)

20. Statista, “Number of Euthanasia Deaths Reported in the Netherlands from 2000 to 2022.” Netherlands: euthanasia 2000-2022 | Statista

21. Government of Canada, “Fourth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada 2022.”

22. Derek Humphry and Mary Clement, Freedom to Die: People, Politics and The Right to Die Movement (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998), p. 333.

23. Aaron J. Trachtenberg and Braden Manns, “Cost Analysis of Medically Assisted Dying in Canada,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, January 23, 2017.

24. Office of the Canadian Budget Office, “Cost Estimate for Bill C-7 ‘Medical Assistance in Dying’,” October 20, 2020.

25. Anne-Marijke Podt, “Widespread Public Support for Assisted Suicide at End of Completed Life,” NL Times, November 8, 2923.

26. Research Co., “Poll on Medically Assisted Dying in Canada,” May 5, 2023. Tables_MAiD_ CAN_05May2023.xlsx Group (researchco.ca)

Categories: All, Health, Medicine

Assisted suicide: Safeguards debated as bioethicist warns of unintended consequences

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Thu, 03/21/2024 - 17:38

The following article was written by bio-ethicist, Philip Reed, in response to Arthur Caplan's article supporting assisted suicide and was published by Kevinmd.com on March 19, 2024.

Reed begins his article by referring to Caplan's article and then writes:

In Canada, deaths by a physician have increased by more than 25 percent every year since legalization in 2016 and now make up over 4 percent of all deaths. Media reports have profiled physician-assisted death for non-terminally ill Canadians who were having trouble accessing medical care, housing, and social support. Caplan understandably wants to avoid this scenario.

The question, however, is how well the safeguards are really working even in the United States. Are they set up to protect the U.S. sufficiently against the Canadian scenario?

One safeguard originally built into these laws was that access to lethal drugs would be limited to state residents. States understandably did not want to become destinations for suicide tourism. But Oregon has stopped enforcing this requirement and Vermont passed a law last year overturning their residency requirement. Other states are expected to follow suit.

Another alleged safeguard is that people who are mentally ill or depressed cannot have access to lethal drugs. However, only Hawaii requires that terminally ill patients be evaluated by a mental health professional. The other states only require referral when they suspect depression or another mental disorder might interfere with decision-making.

In the 25 years of assisted suicide in Oregon, only 3 percent of patients have been referred for a psychiatric evaluation. On the one hand, this is surprising, given that by some estimates 1 in 5 Americans have some kind of mental illness. On the other hand, given that only specialized doctors are willing to prescribe lethal drugs, patients have to shop for the right doctor. In Oregon, the median length of the relationship between the patient who receives a lethal prescription and the doctor who prescribes is down to only five weeks. One can understand how psychiatric referrals get in the way of this transaction. But one also wonders whether this sufficiently protects depressed patients.

Even when a referral is made, the objective is only to determine eligibility for assisted suicide. Only one jurisdiction (the District of Columbia) requires that patients be informed about the option of mental health counselling.

Another safeguard of assisted suicide laws is to have significant waiting periods between the patient’s initial request and obtaining the prescription. This helps ensure the request’s authenticity and that the patient is not choosing rashly. The standard waiting period, endorsed by Caplan, has been 15 days but things are changing. In 2019 the Governor of Oregon signed a law allowing physicians to bypass the waiting period in certain cases. In 2021, California shortened its waiting period from 15 days to 48 hours and subsequently witnessed a 47 percent increase in lethal prescriptions. Hawaii and Washington shortened their waiting periods in 2023 and Colorado has pending legislation to shorten it. New Mexico, seeing the trend, said, “Why wait?” and started with a 48-hour waiting period.

Are people being pushed to choose an assisted death prematurely? I suggest that the ways in which some of these choices are made are subtle and stem from complex psychological and social forces that are not easily captured by evidence. For example, are we expressing to terminally ill patients that experiencing the burdens of their disease does not jeopardize their dignity when we label the alternative “death with dignity?”

About half of Oregon patients who use assisted suicide say that they don’t want to be burdens on their families. Is a choice for death authentic if it is motivated by the idea of sacrificing a potential life worth living in order to unburden one’s caregivers?

Also, in my view, it is unfortunate that some states have incorporated assisted suicide into hospice and palliative care. Hospice says to terminally ill patients, “We can give you an acceptable quality of life at the end of life.” The offer of assisted suicide contradicts this and undermines the mission of hospice.

Medicine in the 21st century is so impressive that we are genuinely surprised when the doctor tells us that nothing can be done. But medicine is not a panacea and it cannot treat mortality. The trouble with assisted suicide laws is that they present death as a neat and tidy way to solve one’s problems. The alleged safeguards are inadequate, and as they have gradually eroded, more and more people come to believe that death can solve their problems too.

Thank you Philip Reed for responding to Caplan.

Categories: All, Health, Medicine

Oregon assisted suicide poison prescriptions increase by 29% in 2023.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Thu, 03/21/2024 - 04:49
The longest time of death was 137 hours (more than 5.5 days).
The complications rate was almost 10% of the assisted suicide deaths.
Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The number of lethal poison prescriptions written under the Oregon assisted suicide law increased substantially with 566 lethal poison prescriptions written in 2023 up by 29% from 433 in 2022.
 
The 2023 Oregon assisted suicide report indicates that there were 367 reported assisted suicide deaths up by 21% from 304 in 2022 which was up by 19% from 255 in 2021. 

The 2022 Oregon assisted suicide report indicated that there were 278 reported assisted suicide deaths meaning that the Oregon Health Authority received 26 assisted suicide reports after January 20, 2023; the date that the 2022 data was compiled. 

The Oregon report under reported the number of assisted suicide deaths by 26 in 2022 and corrected it in the 2023 report. I estimate that the 2024 report will say that there had been approximately 400 assisted suicide deaths in 2023.

The 2023 Oregon assisted suicide report indicates that the ingestion status was unknown in 141 cases. This means that the 141 "unknown" people were approved and received the lethal drugs but the Oregon Health Authority does not know how they died. Some of these cases are assisted suicide deaths that will appear in the 2024 report. Some of these people died a natural death and some of these people died by assisted suicide but no report was submitted. 

Other important data is that 30 of the deaths in 2023 were people who received their lethal poison in 2022. Only 3 of the 566 people who were prescribed lethal poison, were referred for a psychiatric assessment. 

Complications are only known when a health care provider is present at the death. There were 10 known complications based on 102 of the deaths, representing almost a 10% complication rate. In 2022 there were 7 known complications based on 76 deaths, representing a 9% complication rate.

The report indicated that 23 of the 367 reported assisted suicide deaths were out-of-state residents. There could be more than 23 out-of-state assisted suicide deaths. The report included the following disclaimer related to out-of-state assisted suicide deaths:

Information on a patient’s state of residence is not collected during the DWDA prescription process. OHA does not receive death certificates from other states unless the decedent was an Oregon resident. Therefore, if an Oregon DWDA patient dies out of state and was not a resident of Oregon, OHA is unlikely to obtain notice of the death. The out-of-state deaths reported in Table 1 thus may not represent all DWDA deaths from out-of-state residents who obtained a DWDA prescription from an Oregon health care provider.

As with previous years, the report implies that the deaths were voluntary (self-administered), but the information in the report does not address that subject.

Oregon Governor Kate Brown, in July 2019, signing Bill SB 0579 into law to essentially eliminate the 15 day assisted suicide waiting period. This expansion of assisted suicide allows the physician to waive the waiting period, and if the patient is depressed, the patient loses the opportunity to change their mind.
 
In 2023, in 154 deaths the physician waived the 15 day waiting period - in some cases the lethal poison was ingested the day after being first requested.

An article by David Jones (ethicist) was published by the British Medical Journal of Medical Ethics on October 27, 2023. In his article Jones examines 25 years of Oregon assisted suicide reports and comments on what is missing in the data. Jones concludes that there are significant data gaps in the Oregon assisted suicide report which was not re-assuring.
Categories: All, Health, Medicine

Gloria’s Surrogacy Story: Matchmaker, Make Me a Match

Gloria’s first surrogate pregnancy was a positive experience, so when Gloria was contacted, and admittedly pressured (a theme you’ll observe in Gloria’s story), by the same agency to sign-up for a second surrogate pregnancy just five months after giving birth to her first surrogate baby, she was intrigued.  

After I delivered the first surrogate baby, we became really close with the intended parents. We stay in touch to this day… I thought it was amazing to be a part of a team to help complete a family. So I really went into this thinking that I would get the exact same experience.

The agency does start calling pretty quickly after you deliver, trying to kind of pressure you into completing a second journey.

Matching to intended parents (IPs) is a little like match-making on an online dating site, except with this particular agency it’s a blind date for the surrogate mother. “The surrogates actually don’t get to view the IP profiles. Only they [the IPs] get to view our [the surrogate mother’s] profiles. Once they found someone they thought I would be a great match with, they [the agency] set up a match meeting… you kind of interview each other and see if your personalities would match.”

Gloria was also assigned a caseworker or a “support person” who is supposed to “see you through the entire journey.  They’re there to clear up any issues with the intended parents, they’re supposed to help you with hospital records, they’re supposed to help you with appointments, all those kinds of things.” Gloria adds that “most of them are just previous surrogates, surrogates that have gone through that agency.” It’s not uncommon for agencies to use previous surrogate mothers as a poster child or to recruit others into the business. 

In fact, Gloria tells me that for her first “journey” she was used in advertisements all over social media like a poster child for surrogacy and the agency. It wasn’t until she started speaking out about her second experience that she was “attacked” and “blamed for everything.” Being told, “you’re making surrogacy look bad.” 

For my first journey, they [the agency] were posting me all over their social media. The minute that the second journey started going sour, I was nowhere to be found. They have surrogate support meetings on a monthly basis. I wasn’t even allowed to talk about my journey during those meetings. 

Turns out, agencies only want happy surrogate mothers sharing their stories. Let’s continue. 

Having been through this once before, Gloria was “very specific” about her needs to both her caseworker and IPs. Everyone agreed and she was sent off for medical clearance. “Once medical clearance goes through, you go into contracts.” The IPs provided a lawyer for Gloria and “you kind of go back and forth on the contracts. Although there isn’t that much you can change.” 

I want to take a second and stress this point. It’s true, surrogate mothers are provided a lawyer by either the IPs or the agency during contract negotiation. But I wonder, how many of us would go to court or to any negotiation with a lawyer provided by the opposing party? Further, once contracts are signed, the surrogate mother’s provided lawyer is done. They don’t continue representing the surrogate mother throughout the pregnancy and beyond.  As Gloria tells me, [surrogate mothers] “do not have access to their lawyer the entire time. So, when things go wrong, it’s out of your pocket to keep retaining that lawyer.” 

Also, remember how Gloria voiced her needs during the match meeting? Those stipulations, things like needing medical care close to home so that she could take care of her special-needs son, were never included in her contract. Even though the agency and IP’s verbally agreed to all of Gloria’s needs, it was never legally binding. 

Finally, once contracts were signed, the IPs bought Gloria a “health insurance policy to cover the pregnancy” since her personal health insurance policy was not “surrogacy friendly.”  This would prove problematic for Gloria over and over again, especially as health complications started to arise. 

This is part two of a five part series. Over the several weeks we will be releasing a write-up based off of our exclusive interview with Gloria. 

Watch the full interview with Gloria on our YouTube channel.

The post Gloria’s Surrogacy Story: Matchmaker, Make Me a Match appeared first on The Center for Bioethics & Culture Network.

Categories: All, Lay, Medicine

Does California Senate Bill 1196 legalize euthanasia/homicide?

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Wed, 03/20/2024 - 18:43

SB 1196 is a "Trojan horse" euthanasia bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In 2016 California legalized assisted suicide and expanded the law in 2021.

California is now debating further expansions and a change in the law to specifically "utilize" the lethal poison by IV (intravenous).

On March 8, 2024 I published an article based on the summary of the bill from Senator Blakespear, the sponsor of the bill, concerning California Senate Bill 1196

Based on the summary of SB 1196 by Senator Blakespear I stated that the bill would:

  1. Allow euthanasia by IV (intravenous), as in Canada. Currently, California permits assisted suicide (lethal poison that a person takes orally at the time and place of their own choosing, with or without witnesses). This bill allows for death by IV. This constitutes euthanasia/homicide.
  2. Change the criteria from terminally ill (6 month prognosis) to the Canadian model: “a grievous and irremediable medical condition.” Thus, there would be no time limit  and no terminal illness requirement.
  3. Allow people with early to mid-stage dementia to consent to assisted suicide or euthanasia, even though they have a condition that impairs their capacity to consent.
  4. Remove the California residency requirement. California would join Oregon and Vermont, dropping their residency requirements and allowing for suicide tourism.
  5. Remove the 48 hour waiting period between first and second request by the patient - same day death. 
  6. Remove the 2031 sunset clause in the California assisted suicide law.

I published an article on March 18, 2024, stating that the California bill would legalize medical killing. Now that the language of SB 1196 has been released I will further explain how the Bill expands medical killing in California.

The first issue is that SB 1196 would change the law from requiring ingesting of the lethal poison to utilizing the lethal poison. Utilize is not defined in the bill but it can be defined as: "to make practical and effective use of."

The second issue is that SB 1196 would change the law from requiring a terminal disease to a grievous and irremediable medical condition.

Terminal disease was based on a 6 month prognosis whereas grievous and irremediable medical condition has a long definition that essentially means that the person has a serious chronic condition that will continue to decline.

The bill states:  

For purposes of this part, a “grievous and irremediable medical condition” includes a diagnosis of early to mid-stage dementia while the individual still has the capacity to make medical decisions

How would early to mid-state dementia be defined in practise?

The next issue is that SB 1196 permits non-doctors to participate in the law. SB 1196 adds the following: nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and registered nurses.

The next issue is that SB 1196 removes the residency requirement in the California law by striking out the words - is a resident of California.

The most important issue is the use of an IV (intravenous) catheter to "utilize" the poison. SB 1196 states:  

death through ingestion, or through an intravenous pathway after a health care provider places an intravenous catheter if one was not already placed, to bring about the qualified individual’s own death

This statement does not limit the use of the IV catheter to assisted suicide and could allow for euthanasia/homicide.

Later SB 1196, states:  

For purposes of this section, “assisting the qualified individual by preparing the aid-in-dying drug” includes a health care provider placing an intravenous catheter, so long as the health care provider does not assist the qualified individual in introducing the aid-in-dying drug into the qualified individual’s vein.

This statement infers that the person must somehow utilize the IV catheter. The IV can be placed but the health care provider cannot "assist". This is intentionally confusing. There may also be circumstances, such as ALS, where the person has difficulty "utilizing" the IV catheter without assistance.

Justice Chhabria's decision can help us clarify this situation.

On June 22, 2022, a California federal judge rejected a case designed to permit euthanasia within California's assisted suicide act. Lonny Shavelson, a doctor that solely focuses on assisting suicide and Sandra Morris, who had ALS, argued that the state's assisted suicide law discriminated against people who had difficulty self-ingesting the lethal drugs and to remedy the situation the state needed to permit euthanasia in those cases.

In that case, Shavelson argued that allowing the administration of lethal drugs by IV catheter when a person has difficulty self-administering the lethal drugs was necessary. Justice Chhabria rejected the argument:

Chhabria ruled the case could not proceed on the theory that it violates the ADA because the accommodation they seek would cross the boundary created by the End of Life Option Act, “from the ability to end your own life to the ability to have someone else end it for you.”Chhabria further ruled:
“Such an accommodation would ‘compromise' the essential nature of the act, and would therefore fundamentally alter the program.’”

The judge said the law’s self-administration requirement is the “final safeguard” to ensure the act remains voluntary.

“A person seeking to end their life pursuant to the act can opt out at any point — after requesting or receiving the prescription, after the drugs are in their hand, after the feeding tube has been installed, after saying goodbye,” he wrote. “The accommodation that the plaintiffs seek would significantly undermine these protections by opening a window during which there would be no way of knowing whether the patient had changed their mind.”

If SB 1196 is passed it would change the California law by removing self-administer, removing the terminal illness requirement and allowing the utilization of an IV catheter, these changes would make it impossible to distinguish between an act of assisted suicide and an act of euthanasia/homicide. 

Assisted suicide is to receive lethal poison and self-administer it for the purpose of causing death.

Euthanasia is when another person, usually a medical professional, administers the lethal poison for the purpose of causing death. Euthanasia is a form of homicide/murder.

Since SB 1196 does not require a "third/independent party" to witness the act, therefore SB 1196 would enable active euthanasia under the guise of assisted suicide and achieve for the euthanasia lobby what was denied to them by Justice Chhabria in 2022.

SB 1196 is a "Trojan horse" euthanasia bill.

Categories: All, Health, Medicine

The Battle to Keep Commercial Surrogacy Out of Michigan

It seems we have lost the fight to keep commercial surrogacy out of Michigan. In November, 2023 we provided expert testimony to the House Judiciary Committee in Michigan. Then, in March, 2024 we submitted written testimony to the Michigan Senate opposing bills that would legalize commercial surrogacy contracts.  In between, we provided essential education on the topic of surrogacy to lawmakers in the state. The following testimony is the written testimony we submitted to the Senate Committee in early March. Unfortunately, the surrogacy package in Michigan was passed by the Senate on March 19th. No amendments were made and the bills are now headed to the governor. We are committed to protecting women and children at home and abroad. 

March 5, 2024

 To: Senator Stephanie Chang and Members of the Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety Committee

 We write with concern regarding House Bills 5207-5215 which, as a package, would repeal Michigan’s current ban on surrogacy and legalize surrogacy contracts. Infertility is a heartbreaking condition affecting those who desire to have children. However, the pain and grief that infertility causes do not justify the harmful, exploitive nature of the surrogacy industry.  We in no way minimize the heartache that comes from infertility, but we must not harm women and children in our quest to help some!

Many people think “surrogacy builds families, how can that be bad?” Allow us to explain. First, the practice of surrogacy is deeply regressive, exploiting women. The surrogate mother is used for her womb and is then set aside. Just this week I spoke with a surrogate mother in California that felt as if she was trafficked after completing her commercial surrogacy arrangement. She stated in an interview with me, “It actually destroyed me. It’s almost like the world caved in on me. I had this moment of realization of, ‘oh my God, what the hell just happened to me?’ I was dismissed. I was treated like garbage.” She continued, “You have to be ready to be nothing but a womb, and I don’t think women are told the reality of that. You do not exist.” 

Not only is the surrogate discarded after delivery, but the important bond between the infant and birth mother (surrogate mother) is treated as if it were important during the pregnancy, and completely irrelevant afterwards. Even though we know that the maternal-fetal bond is incredibly important in the fourth trimester — especially as the baby adjusts to time outside the womb.  In 1991, WHO and UNICEF launched a global effort to implement practices to protect, promote, and support breast-feeding called the Baby-friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI).[1] It is well understood that skin to skin with the birth mother in the golden hour after delivery promotes this initiative, surrogacy does not. This is only one area where deleterious effects of separating an infant from a birth mother are directly observed in surrogacy. 

Recent research has also shown that there are serious medical and psychosocial risks that gestational surrogacy confers onto women who serve as surrogates and to the babies they carry for another person or couple.  Many developed countries have prohibited commercial surrogacy on human rights and women’s health grounds because surrogacy often depends on the exploitation of low income and poor women by those with means to pay for surrogacy. The European parliament stated in 2011 that surrogacy is “an exploitation of the female body and her reproductive organs.” They have also stated very simply that surrogacy is, “violence against women.” More recently, in January 2024, Belgian presidency of the Council and representatives of the European Parliament reached a provisional agreement to add surrogacy as a type of exploitation covered by the EU’s anti-trafficking law. 

By itself, in vitro fertilization (IVF) is not without its share of risks and complications, coupled with a very high failure rate of a very costly procedure. From the CDC’s most recent data of 2020 we see that 326,468 IVF cycles were done which resulted in 75,023 live born infants. That isn’t a high success rate. IVF can be deleterious on a woman’s health and new studies are exploring the dangerous effects on the children born through this technology as well. A 2021 study found that “children conceived by assisted reproductive technology (ART) had statistically significantly worse outcomes in left ventricular function and structure.”  The article further stated that “children conceived by ART had increased blood pressure and unfavorable changes in left ventricular structure and function compared with children who were naturally conceived.”[2]

 Not only does surrogacy have risks associated with the IVF procedure, research has shown that surrogate pregnancies are high-risk pregnancies and are more likely to result in cesarean section, maternal gestational diabetes, hypertension or preeclampsia, placenta previa, and other life-threatening complications like postpartum depression.[3,4] Children born from IVF have increased incidences of pre-term birth, low birth weight, cerebral palsy, and other conditions that result in NICU admissions and longer hospital stays.[4] There have even been confirmed deaths of surrogate mothers in both the United States and abroad. Most people are unaware that a surrogate pregnancy, even if the surrogate is only carrying one baby, is a higher-risk pregnancy. Of course, high-risk pregnancies put mother and baby(ies) at risk.  Dr. Anthony Diehl, an Ob/Gyn doctor in Rapid City talks about the conflicts of interest when a physician is taking care of a surrogate mother but is being paid by the people who intend the raise the child. Let us remind you that the U.S. has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the developed world, having doubled from 1991 to 2014, and is the only developed country whose maternal mortality rate is rising. With already high maternal mortality rates, why would Michigan further encourage or allow for the legalization of commercial surrogacy when surrogate pregnancies result in even higher risks still?

 

Finally, we should all pause and consider if we want to create a world where we market human beings. Jessica Kern, a woman who found out at 16 that she was a product of gestational surrogacy, writes “I think commercial surrogacy is wrong. It really is the buying and selling of babies, and the commodification of women’s bodies.”[5] Do children conceived from surrogacy contracts feel like Jessica Kern? We don’t know because, to date, there is no research on how offspring of surrogacy feel about their origins. Jessica continues in her story, “I think that there is a very important voice missing from the ongoing cultural debate over surrogacy: the voices of the children themselves.”4 Until we hear from the children, surrogacy will continue to be “unashamedly, an adult or parent-centered view, with the basic human rights of newborn babies ignored.”[6]

 Allowing some people to buy other people, even if they are young and small, is not a pro-liberty policy. Legislation, as a matter of good public policy, should help and protect citizens.  As we seek to assist those who long for a family, we must realize that some of these very costly solutions offered carry real risks to women and children. Michigan has done well to ban surrogacy and we hope you continue to protect the lives of women and children, valuing each as a human life, not a product for sale.  

 Jennifer Lahl, R.N., B.S.N, M.A.

Founder, The Center for Bioethics and Culture

 

Kallie Fell, R.N., B.S.N., M.S.

Executive Director, The Center for Bioethics and Culture

 

  1. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009.
  2. Cui L, Zhao M, Zhang Z, Zhou W, Lv J, Hu J, Ma J, Fang M, Yang L, Magnussen CG, Xi B, Chen ZJ. Assessment of Cardiovascular Health of Children Ages 6 to 10 Years Conceived by Assisted Reproductive Technology. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Nov 1;4(11):e2132602. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.32602. PMID: 34735014; PMCID: PMC8569486.
  1. A Comparison of American Women’s Experiences with Both Gestational Surrogate Pregnancies and Spontaneous Pregnancies
  2. https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(17)31941-6/fulltext
  3. https://www.legalizesurrogacywhynot.com/jessica-kern-story
  4. Klein, R. (2017). Surrogacy: A human rights violation. 

 

The post The Battle to Keep Commercial Surrogacy Out of Michigan appeared first on The Center for Bioethics & Culture Network.

Categories: All, Lay, Medicine

Are you grieving after a loved one died by euthanasia? Join a retreat day on Saturday May 25 in Toronto.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Tue, 03/19/2024 - 20:41

Are you grieving the loss of a loved one through Medical Assistance in Dying (euthanasia)?

Compassionate Community Care and St John The Compassionate Mission are hosting a retreat day for hospitality, support, reflection and sharing for those who are hurting from losing a loved one (friend or family) through (MAiD) euthanasia.

Anyone who is grieving is welcome.

The event is: Saturday May 25, 2024 from 12 to 8 pm.

The location: 155 Broadview Ave., Toronto ON M4M 2E9

There is a suggested donation of $100. Meals are provided.

For more information and to register email: info@beingwith.org or outreach@stmarysrefuge.org

Project Anna and Simeon.

Categories: All, Health, Medicine

California bill would legalize Medical Killing

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Mon, 03/18/2024 - 19:58
Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In 2016 California legalized assisted suicide and expanded the law in 2021. 
 
California is now debating further expansions and a change in the law to permit 'Canadian-style' medical killing.

On March 8, 2024 I published an article concerning California Senate Bill 1196, a bill that would:

  1. Allow euthanasia by IV (intravenous), as in Canada. Currently, California permits assisted suicide (lethal poison that a person takes orally at the time and place of their own choosing, with or without witnesses). This bill allows for death by IV. This constitutes euthanasia/homicide.
  2. Change the criteria from terminally ill (6 month prognosis) to the Canadian model: “a grievous and irremediable medical condition.” Thus, there would be no time limit  and no terminal illness requirement.
  3. Allow people with early to mid-stage dementia to consent to assisted suicide or euthanasia, even though they have a condition that impairs their capacity to consent.
  4. Remove the California residency requirement. California would join Oregon and Vermont, dropping their residency requirements and allowing for suicide tourism.
  5. Remove the 48 hour waiting period between first and second request by the patient - same day death. 
  6. Remove the 2031 sunset clause in the California assisted suicide law.

Maggie Hroncich wrote an article that was published in the New York Sun on March 18, 2024 explaining the proposed changes to California's End of Life Options Act. Hroncich writes:

Dubbed by critics as the ‘most extreme’ expansion effort in America, the bill’s backers say it would give patients greater medical autonomy.

As efforts to expand physician-assisted death ramp up across the country, California lawmakers will consider a measure to expand access to the procedures for dementia patients, add new ways drugs can be taken, and open access to out-of-state residents. 

Senate Bill 1196, introduced by a state senator, Catherine Blakespear, would expand California’s End of Life Options Act to include patients with a “grievous and irremediable medical condition” to request doctor-assisted death in addition to patients with a terminal disease. 

Senate Bill 1196 uses similar language to Canada's euthanasia law:
In Canada, a shocking four percent of the country’s deaths were from assisted suicide — leading to it being the fifth-leading cause of death there, as the Sun has reported. Recently, reports have emerged that a father is asking a Canadian court to stop his 27-year-old daughter’s assisted suicide, whom he says has autism and doesn’t meet the criteria for assisted death.

The California bill would set new conditions that would require a patient to be in a state of “irreversible decline in capability” and experiencing “physical or psychological suffering” that is “intolerable to the individual and cannot be relieved in a manner the individual deems acceptable.” Additionally, it must be “reasonably foreseeable” that the condition would become the patient’s natural cause of death. 

The legislation, if enacted, would also expand assisted-death to allow patients with “early-to mid-stage dementia,” allow IV infusions of the drugs rather than the current requirement that it must be taken orally or through a digestive tract, remove the 2031 sunset date, and remove the state’s residency requirement. 

Hroncich states:

One vocal critic of the bill is the Executive Director of Canada’s Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Alex Schadenberg, who is warning California lawmakers not to “follow Canada’s lead.” 

“Changing the criteria from a terminal illness (6 months prognosis) to having a ‘grievous and irremediable medical condition’ will lead to people with disabilities ‘qualifying’ for death by lethal poison for reasons of poverty, homelessness, an inability to obtain necessary services or difficulty with obtaining medical treatment as has happened in Canada,” he notes. 

The bill could lead to “homicide tourism,” he adds, and the IV infusion allowance would mean doctors are actively carrying out the death rather than assisting a patient in self-administering the fatal drugs. “Euthanasia is sold to the public as allowing competent adults who are capable of consenting to die by lethal poison,” according to Mr. Schadenberg. “Allowing euthanasia for people with dementia permits medical practitioners to kill someone who is not competent and unable to consent.”

Hroncich was careful in writing this article but clearly Senate Bill 1196 will not only expand the assisted suicide law, but it will also legalize euthanasia, otherwise known as homicide. This is not an expansion of the law. This would be the legalization of euthanasia.

Categories: All, Health, Medicine

Fertility Doctors Refused To Treat Me Holistically Because IVF Is Their Cash Cow

This article is written by a guest author, Catie Vandamme. It was first published at The Federalist and is republished here with permission. In our efforts at the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, we are focused on educating people on the facts around Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Stories like Catie’s are rarely talked about in the popular press or on Capitol Hill. In fact, many people are woefully unaware of restorative reproductive medicine which aims to correct the underlying fertility issue.  Quite honestly, this is because BigFertility doesn’t make huge profits from treating infertility.  How many more people might benefit from stories like Catie’s?  Stay tuned as we report many more like hers.

Earlier this month, Gov. Kay Ivey, R-Ala., signed the medical protection of in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures and treatments into Alabama law.

Ivey commended this legislation, saying it reinforces the state’s commitment to the pro-life cause. “Alabama works to foster a culture of life, and that certainly includes IVF,” she said in a statement that day. “I am pleased to sign this important, short-term measure into law so that couples in Alabama hoping and praying to be parents can grow their families through IVF,” she added.

But to what extent is providing IVF treatment to families the best option? To what extent does it truly protect the life of the mother and the unborn?

When I was in my early twenties, I was diagnosed with a condition called endometriosis. This condition exposed me to the often challenging and disheartening world of reproductive health care. Because of my condition, I knew there was a possibility I would struggle to conceive naturally on my own, but I was never told by any doctor that I would not be able to conceive. I knew to approach the topic of infertility with a general level of healthy consideration of what might be required to get pregnant. After being married for a couple of years, I sought out a health care provider to get a clearer picture of my reproductive health.

There was no way I could have anticipated the can of worms I’d opened.

Trying to choose between the hundreds of fertility specialists in Dallas was dizzying. I decided to pick one at a reputable hospital and see what happened. This doctor ran a relatively normal blood panel and had me come back in to go over the results. Within less than five minutes of my arrival, this doctor began giving me information about IVF. He mumbled something about my AMH levels (hormone levels that assess ovarian reserve count) being “somewhat low for my age,” and this was why he suggested such drastic measures. I was only 29. My husband and I hadn’t even tried to conceive naturally yet.

Without pause, he started informing me of the need to artificially stimulate my ovaries to make more eggs and to consider embryo adoption or surrogacy. He also brought up the topic of creating, freezing, and storing human embryos before ominously fumbling through my questions and concerns around his comments on “discarding human embryos.” I left his office reeling — and with a packet of information on our financial responsibilities.

I simply wanted to ask some questions about my reproductive health. Instead, I was thrown onto a fertility conveyor belt — the picture painted that this was the absolute only way.

We decided to seek a second opinion from two other doctors. They were even worse than the first. The first was so inundated with patients that he called me another patient’s name and tried to start me on another patient’s procedure. I had to stop him mid-sentence to help him realize his error. Our appointment was rushed and lacked detail. He said we could try conceiving on our own for a while but that I shouldn’t wait too long. IVF was standard.

The third doctor took one look at my bloodwork results and started talking about himself. He said he was “one of the most renowned specialists in the world,” and that “people come from all over and spend millions of dollars” desperately wanting him to make them a baby. He told me of the failure rates with IVF and the babies he had seen born prematurely. He described in detail their deformities and tragic deaths. I sat there in shock. He began to ask me if I truly wanted to go through the process of IVF. He asked if I even wanted to have children — after all, they are a lot of work and can be spoiled. He mentioned something about his niece and how terrible she is. He told me I should be happy without a baby and travel.

I sat there stunned, and my eyes started to water. He looked me dead in the eyes and said, “Why are you crying?”

These doctors rushed through my questions. I wanted to know if there were other things I could do before IVF. Could we figure out why my hormone levels were low and treat that instead? If I had a low egg count, why did they want to pump me full of synthetic hormones to get my body to mass-produce eggs if I was already producing them on some level? Don’t you only need one egg to get pregnant?

I reminded myself that my egg count numbers were somewhat low for my age, but they were not nonexistent. After realizing there was no way I could come up with the $40,000 this treatment would cost me, and losing all respect for the fertility world in Dallas, I gave up for the time being.

Six months later, I was scrolling on Instagram. I came across an account that seemed holistic and practiced restorative reproductive treatment. I discovered that this type of treatment could help me understand my own body’s functioning and why my hormones were off. This would allow doctors to use my information to help my fertility and allow my husband and me to conceive naturally.

I found one doctor in the Dallas area at the time who practiced this treatment method. He ran follicle scans and discovered a hormone imbalance that was negatively affecting my ovulation. He advised me to go on an anti-inflammation diet and put me on a dose of progesterone, the cost of which was only $4 and covered by my insurance. I also learned how to chart my fertility cycles.

I became pregnant naturally, two months later.

I told this doctor about my quick brush with IVF. He said that restorative reproduction treatments are seen as boring and don’t make a lot of money for IVF specialists — you won’t need (or pay for) the fertility specialists’ services any longer if you’re healed. I was stunned. He told me how unethical it would have been to start me on IVF without managing my endometriosis surgically — placing me at greater risk of miscarrying, or ectopic pregnancies. The three previous doctors made no mention of that.

The first time I met with this holistic doctor, he ran my bloodwork again, checking the same hormone levels the first doctor did. My numbers were normal, higher even than the first time. He said those numbers fluctuate and should never be used for complete fertility outcome estimates.

This experience taught me a lot about the need to advocate for my own health. I can’t imagine how many women a year go into those clinics desperate for a child, blindly trusting these doctors and unaware of any restorative approaches to treating their reproductive systems. How many women wind up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars putting their bodies through so much pain? How many human embryos are created and frozen because the doctor was lazy — or greedy? How many doctors know the actual outcomes of IVF but aren’t upfront about the heartache and risks?

States like Alabama need to rethink how they are fighting the pro-life fight. Women need to know there are safer, more affordable, and more effective options. I’m so grateful I learned about this holistic method and was able to give birth to a healthy baby.

The post Fertility Doctors Refused To Treat Me Holistically Because IVF Is Their Cash Cow appeared first on The Center for Bioethics & Culture Network.

Categories: All, Lay, Medicine

Dutch doctors oppose euthanasia for "completed life."

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Mon, 03/18/2024 - 02:49
Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On March 17, the NL Times reported that the Royal Dutch Medical Association maintained their opposition to euthanasia for "completed life." The NL Times report stated:

Doctors are still opposing a proposal to make euthanasia possible for elderly people who feel their life is fulfilled. The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) says there are still too many risks for people in a vulnerable position.

D66 submitted an amended "completed life" bill in November. The bill states that people 75 years of age and older can decide to end their life when they feel they no longer wish to continue living. With the assistance of a new professional, the end-of-life counselor, they would be able to do so.

There are usually complex problems behind suicidal ideation in elderly people, KNMG warns. They mention problems like loneliness, depression, social isolation, financial problems, or a weak socioeconomic position.

The doctors' federation says more attention should be given to these issues. "The facilitating of suicide for the elderly in a vulnerable position is not a responsible or desirable way."

The age limit is also an issue for the KNMG, as it sends a signal "that life for the elderly is worth less than the life of younger people." KNMG expressed similar criticism about an earlier proposal.

The D66 party has been pushing for euthanasia for "completed life" for many years. In the last years general election the D66 fell from 24 - 9 seats. With the loss of political influence for the D66, it is unlikely that euthanasia will be extended to "completed life" any time soon.

Categories: All, Health, Medicine

Schadenberg message to the Isle of Man. Euthanasia: Don't go there.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Sat, 03/16/2024 - 02:00
Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Alex Schadenberg (jet lag picture)I just completed meetings with elected representatives in Scotland and the Isle of Man. Medical professionals, under the banner of Manx Duty of Care, brought me to the Isle of Man.

While in the Isle of Man I was interviewed, along with Dr Graham McAll, by the BBC. The BBC news report states:
The Isle of Man should not "open the door" to proposed assisted dying laws, a Canadian campaigner has said.

Alex Schadenberg from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition believes proposed safeguards would be eroded over time.

Mr Schadenberg is set to share his views at public meeting on the issue in Douglas on Tuesday, organised by a group of island medics who have raised concerns about the bill.According to the BBC the proposed legislation stipulates to be eligible you must be an island resident diagnosed with a terminal illness, with a life expectancy of six months or less. I reportedly stated:
In 2021, Canada loosened its euthanasia laws to no longer require that a patient's condition be terminally ill, allowing people whose condition is serious and incurable to request it.

Mr Schadenberg said: "Don’t go there... we were told in Canada it would only be for rare cases [but] you open the door to one thing, and you end up getting something else."
Dr Graham McAll - Manx Duty of CareThe BBC reported Dr Graham McAll stating
Retired GP Graham McAll is a member of Manx Duty of Care, an opposition group of about 150 health and social care workers and organisers of the meeting at the Manx Museum.

He said he believed the proposals were "dangerous" as he feared they would be eventually extended and "we won't be able to stop it once we open the can of worms".

The move was "unnecessary" as with improved care "the legislation should not be needed", Mr McAll said.Manx radio provided a shorter but similar as the BBC report. Manx radio reported:
Once assisted dying has been legalised, it's hard to stop the criteria for those eligible being expanded.

That's the warning from a campaigner from Canada, who's been speaking at an event on the Isle of Man.

Canada introduced laws similar to those being considered on the Isle of Man in 2016, before widening the groups able to request an assisted death in 2021.
More than 130 people attended the public meeting and 9 members of the Manx parliament.
Categories: All, Health, Medicine

Pages

Subscribe to Distinctions Matter aggregator - Medicine