After the Supreme Court decision in Carter, what comes next?

Life Canada, the national educational pro-life organization released this letter on April 2, 2015 following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Carter case:

Open Letter to the Government of Canada re.
Supreme Court Decision in the Carter Case


While some political leaders are eager to apply the Supreme Court ruling and legislate as quickly as possible, we and those we represent across Canada are grateful that the Conservative government will at least “listen to Canadians from all backgrounds”. As Mr. Harper has correctly acknowledged, this court decision is “very delicate and very divisive among Canadians”.

We thank the Government for taking the time to listen to the concerns of Canadians, in a spirit of democracy.

LifeCanada, the organizations and the individuals that we represent are extremely concerned about the Supreme Court decision, which has found Sections 241 and 14 of the Criminal Code to be in violation of the Charter.

The dignity of human life is not a subjective reality, but an inherent aspect of our human nature that must be upheld in law, as one of its primary objectives. Ours has become a secular society, and the duty of affirming and protecting human life falls on both law and medicine to maintain the inherent and inestimable value of that life.

What the Supreme Court has done in the Carter Decision is to render that dignity subject to individual autonomy and self-determination. It is asking the law to allow killing, something that has always been prohibited, even with consent, and it is asking medicine to be the means of inflicting that death. Ultimately it asks society to endorse the notion that there is such a thing as a life unworthy to be lived.

We believe that this decision, if accepted by Parliament, will have serious ramifications for all Canadians, today and in the decades to come. We agree with the ethicist and legal scholar Margaret Somerville (Canadian Press, Feb. 6/15):

This is not an incremental change but a seismic shift in one of our most important foundational values – respect for human life at both the individual and societal levels. I believe that future generations will look back on this ruling, in light of its future consequences, as one of the important, harmful and regrettable ethical, legal and public policy decisions of the 21st century.

One of the first areas to suffer will be good palliative care. In a recent opinion piece by Dr. Harvey Max Chochinov, he notes the following:

Despite the impressive strides that palliative care has taken — in areas such as pain and symptom management, and sensitivities to the psychosocial, existential and spiritual challenges facing dying patients and their families — at their time of licensure, physicians have been taught less about pain management than those graduating from veterinary medicine. Once in practice, most physicians have knowledge deficiencies that can significantly impair their ability to manage cancer pain.

What is truly concerning about this decision is that doctors who have “knowledge deficiencies” in proper pain management and end of life care will, nevertheless, be licensed to kill. Dr. Chochinov states that,

It should be noted that the authority to provide a hastened death will be conferred on physicians, many of whom lack core competencies to care for patients nearing death.

 

To be clear, dying badly in Canada will rarely be the fallout of not having access to a lethal overdose or injection, and will almost invariably be the result of inadequate or substandard end-of-life care.

Consequently, society will be prioritizing the ending of life over caring for life in its final stages. We submit that this is misguided. Like many we believe palliative care is the right of all Canadians, and should be accessible to all before procured death is even considered.

Of the many serious implications of the Supreme Court decision, there is none that concerns us more than the “suicide creep” argument, given that so many lives will now be at stake. Legislation that will allow for physician inflicted death will invariably send a strong message to the public that this action is a human right, prompting many to feel that they can demand and receive it according to their wishes, irrespective of what the law outlines.

Dr. Theo Boer, professor of health care ethics and a member of the Euthanasia Review Committee for the Dutch Government noted that laws allowing assisted suicide created a strong sense of entitlement among the population.

Whereas the law sees assisted suicide and euthanasia as an exception, public opinion is shifting towards considering them rights, with corresponding duties on doctors to act. A new law is in the making that obliges doctors who refuse to provide assisted dying to refer their patients to a ‘willing’ colleague. Pressure on doctors to conform to patients’ (or in some cases relatives’) wishes can be intense.

How will the law prohibit people who are not terminally ill but who want to die, from requesting and receiving death at the hand of a physician? How will the courts, having established suicide as a constitutional right on the basis of individual autonomy, argue against those who see assisted suicide as a universal right that must be administered on demand?

A look at legislation around the world shows that abuse is possible in every jurisdiction where the practice is legal, that the law itself can never guarantee that innocent lives will not be taken without consent, and that the list of conditions and situations in which people can request and receive medically induced death only widens.

Studies in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (June, 2010) indicated that the law in Belgium was widely abused. Almost one-third of euthanasia deaths were illegally performed without patient consent. And half of nurses administering euthanasia did so without the patient’s knowledge or consent. Nearly half of the nurses in the study – 120 of 248 – admitted they acted without patient consent.

“The nurses in our study operated beyond the legal margins of their profession,” said the report’s authors.

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine (March 2015) found that euthanasia deaths in Belgium have more than doubled from 2007 to 2013.

Studies coming out of Oregon show that since 2005, the number of deaths by assisted suicide has doubled. Prescriptions to kill patients grew by 76 percent, whereas the population grew by only seven percent. (OR Death With Dignity Act 2013)

Washington State legislators have determined that their assisted suicide law is too restrictive. As suspected they want to make assisted suicide available to those who judge their suffering unbearable but are not terminally ill, as well as those who are not competent but have previously asked for assisted suicide in an advanced directive.

Interestingly, between 2009 and 2012, the number of deaths by assisted suicide grew by 130 percent while Washington’s population grew only 18 percent. (WA Death With Dignity Act 2013)

And in the Netherlands, the number of deaths by euthanasia doubled between 2008 and 2013. Under the Groningen Protocol for physicians, the right to medically induced death has expanded to include babies. This protocol regulates the process of killing infants with life threatening illness and/or the prospect of great suffering. (2013 Netherlands Euthanasia Report)

In Quebec, where Bill 52 legalizing voluntary euthanasia for those over 18 was adopted last year, the secretary of the College of Physicians already sees the legislation as “only one step:”

As Quebecers become accustomed to doctors administering lethal injections to dying patients, the questions will not be about who is receiving euthanasia but who is being denied it. We will have to think about that, not only for [incapable] adults but obviously for youngsters who face terminal diseases. (Yves Robert, cited in National Post Feb. 14/14)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has stated in the past, once assisted suicide or euthanasia is legalized, there will be no guarantee that innocent lives will not be taken. It was on these grounds that the Conservative government did not open up this debate in Parliament and rightfully so.

Unfortunately the time constraints required by the Carter ruling do not allow the people’s representatives sufficient time to deliberate these weighty matters. We therefore call upon the government to do all that it can, including employing the use of Section 33, the notwithstanding clause, to forestall precipitous legislation and protect the lives of Canadians from this disastrous Supreme Court decision. We believe Section 33, which gives both Parliament and provincial Legislatures final discretion over how some Charter rights are interpreted, and which some provinces have exercised, was placed in our Constitution for just such a situation as this.

We trust that the government will listen to the voices of Canadians who have shown in our annual national polling, to be consistently wary of legalized physician death. We invite you to view our polls at www.lifecanada.org/services/national-polls.

Natalie Sonnen,

Executive Director
On behalf of the Board of Directors of  LifeCanada

Posted in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia | Leave a comment

Supreme Court decision in Carter case

Elderly woman - sad 2The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the Carter case is a devastating one in that it allows assisted suicide and euthanasia.  The Court struck down section 241 of the Criminal Code which forbids assisted suicide and section 14 which forbids euthanasia. Section 241 says that “everyone who counsels a person to commit suicide, or aids or abets a person to commit suicide whether suicide ensues or not is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.”  Section 14 of the Criminal Code states: “No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the person by whom consent is given.”

By  removing the prohibition on assisted suicide and euthanasia, the Court abandoned the societal good of protecting human life. It is only when these practices are prohibited by law that vulnerable persons are truly protected.   The Court reversed its 1993  judgement in Rodriguez v. British Columbia which upheld the ban on assisted suicide. Stating that the law was “overbroad”, the court ruled:

“We conclude that the prohibition on physician-assisted dying is void insofar as it                  deprives a competent adult of such assistance where the person affected clearly                     consents to the termination of life; and the person has a grievous and irremediable               medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring         suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.”

Suffering in this decision is meant to include both psychological and physical suffering. Under section 7 of the Charter pertaining to the right to life, liberty and security of the person, the Court essentially found that the right to life includes the right to die. The Court determined that the ban on euthanasia and assisted suicide ” deprives some individuals of life” because an individual  might to be compelled to commit suicide prematurely fearing that he might not be able to do so at a later stage of his condition. A rather strange assessment and understanding of the right to life! The decision is also replete with imprecise language such as “assisted dying” and completely overrides the fact that from 1991 to 2010, Parliament voted on six occasions  against decriminalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide. The last time resulted in a vote of  228 against  to 59 in favour.

‘Assisted death’, ‘physician assisted dying’, ‘medical aid in dying’, these terms coined by euthanasia advocates are used to mask the horrific reality of these practices. The physician will not be assisting your death, he will be causing it. In assisted suicide, the doctor provides the patient with a prescription for a lethal dose of drugs. The patient is supposed to self administer the lethal dose. In euthanasia, the physician will administer a lethal injection with the intention of causing the patient’s death. Either way, the doctor is involved in killing not health care. These practices will seriously harm the doctor patient relationship. Involving physicians in killing is detrimental for the medical profession and patients.

Highly vulnerable communities will be the most affected by this terrible ruling. The fear of being a burden, loneliness, depression and despair, all these may be a factor in requests for euthanasia and assisted suicide. Proponents of these practices always try to persuade us that safeguards will protect patients. Yet the experience with euthanasia and assisted suicide in jurisdictions where it is legal provides evidence  that abuses occur. In Holland and Belgium, the data show that patients have been ‘terminated’ without explicit request or consent.

The Supreme Court stated that “nothing in this declaration would compel physicians to o provide assistance in dying”.  A  physician will not be coerced to euthanize or provide a lethal prescription. There is cause for concern however because it then adds that the “rights of patients and physicians will need to be reconciled”. In light of the new policy of the College of Surgeons and Physicians of Ontario forcing physicians to refer for services in spite of conscientious or moral objections to these services, will referrals for assisted suicide and euthanasia be mandatory as well?

The Supreme Court has suspended its decision for twelve months saying that Parliament can enact a new legislative regime if it so chooses. Parliament also has the option of invoking the notwithstanding clause  which would suspend the Supreme Court decision for five years and maintain the prohibition on euthanasia and assisted suicide.  Consider the profound consequences for patients and physicians if euthanasia and assisted suicide now become part of our medical care system. The vast majority of palliative care physicians does not want to be involved in euthanasia or assisted suicide. In a February 9th article in the Canadian Medical Association journal, palliative care physician Dr. Jessica Simon of Calgary, Alberta says: The intentional act of ending someone’s life is not part of palliative medicine . I’ve never had a case where someone has had to die in order to relieve their suffering, because we have other tools at our disposal, including palliative sedation.”…

She continues, “I do not look forward to the day when I come home and someone says ‘What did you do at work today?’ and I say ‘Today I killed somebody’.”

 

Posted in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia | Leave a comment

No duty to refer for euthanasia or assisted suicide

Maurice Vellacott, Member of Parliament  for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin issued a press release on January 8 concerning physician referrals and conscientious objection. Mr. Vellacott wrote in anticipation of the Supreme Court decision possibly striking down the prohibition on euthanasia and assisted suicide. He expressed concern for physicians who might be forced to refer for procedures to which they object for reasons of conscience and religious beliefs in light of the draft policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO). If this policy is approved, physicians would be expected to refer patients to a non-objecting physician. He says:

“…From the research I have conducted, with the help of the Library of Parliament, I have learned there is not a single jurisdiction in the world that forces doctors to violate their consciences through mandatory referrals for these life-ending “treatments.”

In spite of no jurisdiction in the world imposing on physicians a legal duty to refer for euthanasia or assisted suicide, and in spite of the support for freedom of conscience by the national medical organization representing Canada’s physicians, we have the regulatory body in Ontario poised to punish physicians who act upon their moral guidance system that tells them that killing patients is wrong.

Over the years, there have been repeated attempts by activists and special interest groups to impose their version of morality on all health care workers(almost succeeding in 2008 to convince CPSO to impose mandatory referral, until a loud public outcry from right across the country compelled CPSO to reverse course).

… Any new law to regulate these life-ending medical procedures will need to include explicit protection for those health care workers who won’t take part in any action that aids or abets the killing of their patients.”

Again to repeat the results of the research conducted by Mr. Vellacott with help from the Library of Parliament, there  is no requirement forcing physicians to refer for assisted suicide and euthanasia in any of the jurisdictions where these practices are legal.

For the full press release see: www.mauricevellacott.ca/maurice.html

 

 

 

Posted in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia | Leave a comment

Protecting freedom of conscience and religion for physicians

doctor with pills
Our submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario regarding its draft Policy on Professional Obligations and Human Rights follows:
Action Life is a non-denominational  educational pro-life organization promoting respect for human life from conception to natural death. We count approximately 4,000 supporters in Ottawa and the surrounding region.
Action Life is greatly troubled by the sections of the draft policy pertaining to freedom of conscience and religion for doctors. The draft policy requires physicians  who will not provide certain services for reasons of conscience or religious beliefs to refer to another  “non-objecting, available, and accessible physician or other health care provider”. For objecting physicians, the act of referral itself would violate their conscience. Physicians should not be forced to refer for services to which they object on moral or religious grounds.  
Freedom of conscience and religion are fundamental in a free and democratic society. To demand that physicians leave their conscience at the door is an attack on the physician’s integrity and his constitutional rights to freedom of conscience and religion as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Physicians have a right to practice in accordance to their conscience. Patients do not have a right to demand services to which the physician objects. Physicians should be able to work without fear of retribution if they decline to provide services which are in opposition to their moral and religious beliefs. The recent Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on euthanasia and assisted suicide will further increase pressure on physicians. If the physician will not kill the patient or write a prescription for a lethal dose of drugs, will he now be forced to refer to someone who will? 
Attacks on the freedom of conscience of physicians continue to mount.  We share the grave concerns of some physicians who wonder if the field of medicine will now only be opened to those who are willing to compromise their moral and religious beliefs. The Ontario Medical Association’s Section on General and Family Practice in its August 6, 2014 letter to the College of Physicians and Surgeons observed: “The Section believes it is important to ensure that the public continues to have access to care from the best and brightest minds and we are concerned that quality could suffer if we only accept medical students who are willing to compromise their personal values.” 
We ask that  the College abandon the sections of its draft policy which would force physicians to act contrary to their conscience and religious beliefs. In its place, the policy should include a protection of conscience clause for physicians to ensure that  freedom of conscience and religion is respected.
Posted in Abortion, Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia | Leave a comment

Always a human being, always a person

PersonhoodSizeC

Posted in Abortion, Personhood | Leave a comment

Protecting physicians from coercion

male_medical_worker

The Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons in the provinces of Ontario and Saskatchewan have introduced draft policies which if passed would require physicians to refer for services to which they object even if doing so would violate their conscience. We can think of referrals for abortion or euthanasia if euthanasia is legalized in Canada.  Such policies in our view would trample on the  freedom of conscience and religion rights of physicians . Both colleges are seeking submissions from the public regarding the proposed changes. For more information, please read the press release below:

Protection of Conscience Project
  www.consciencelaws.org

News Release

Policy wording supplied by abortion and euthanasia activists

Policy would apply to euthanasia, if legalized.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan proposing a draft policy demanding that physicians who object to “legally permissible and publicly-funded health services” must direct patients to colleagues who will provide them.  If another physician is unavailable, the College demands that they provide “legally permissible and publicly-funded” services,  even if doing so “conflicts with physicians’ deeply held and considered moral or religious beliefs.”

Physicians usually refuse to participate in abortion because they believe it is wrong to kill what the criminal law refers to as a child that has not become a human being.1 The proposed policy will require them to find a physician willing to do the killing they won’t do.  Should the Supreme Court of Canada legalize euthanasia, the policy will require objecting physicians who refuse to kill patients to find someone who will.

The seamless fit between referral for abortion and referral for euthanasia is not surprising.  The draft College policy was largely written by abortion and euthanasia activists, notably Professor Jocelyn Downie of Dalhousie University.

In a 2006 guest editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Professor Downie and another law professor claimed that objecting physicians are obliged to refer patients for abortion.2  Their views were vehemently rejected by physicians and repudiated by the Canadian Medical Association.3  Partly as a result of the negative response, Professor Downie and her colleagues in the “Conscience Research Group” decided to convince Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons to impose it.4

Saskatchewan’s draft policy is taken almost verbatim from their “Model Conscientious Objection Policy.”

The Conscience Research Group is  a tax-funded initiative that includes Professors Downie and Daniel Weinstock.5   Both  were members of an “expert panel” that recommended that health care professionals who object to killing patients should be compelled to refer patients to someone who would,6 because (they claimed) it is agreed that they can be compelled to refer for “reproductive health services.”7

Current efforts by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to suppress freedom of conscience in the medical profession may have been influenced by the Conscience Research Group.  However, the College in Saskatchewan is the first to copy and paste its preferred model into a draft policy.

The Project insists that it is incoherent and contrary to sound public policy to include a requirement to do what one believes to be wrong in a professional code of ethics. It is also an affront to the best traditions of liberal democracy, and, ultimately, dangerous.

The College Council has approved the policy in principle, but will accept feedback on it until 6 March, 2015.

Notes:

  1. Criminal Code, Section 238(1). (Accessed 2014-12-02)
  2. Rodgers S. Downie J. “Abortion: Ensuring Access.” CMAJ July 4, 2006 vol. 175 no. 1 doi: 10.1503/cmaj.060548 (Accessed 2014-12-02).
  3. Blackmer J. Clarification of the CMA’s position on induced abortion. CMAJ April 24, 2007 vol. 176 no. 9 doi: 10.1503/cmaj.1070035 (Accessed 2014-02-22)
  4. McLeod C, Downie J. “Let Conscience Be Their Guide? Conscientious Refusals in Health Care.” Bioethics ISSN 0269-9702 (print); 1467-8519 (online) doi:10.1111/bioe.12075 Volume 28 Number 1 2014 pp ii–iv
  5. Let their conscience be their guide? Conscientious refusals in reproductive health care: Meet the team.(Accessed 2014-11-21)
  6. Schuklenk U, van Delden J.J.M, Downie J, McLean S, Upshur R, Weinstock D. Report of the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on End-of-Life Decision Making (November, 2011) p. 101 (Accessed 2014-02-23)
  7. Schuklenk U, van Delden J.J.M, Downie J, McLean S, Upshur R, Weinstock D. Report of the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on End-of-Life Decision Making (November, 2011) p. 62 (Accessed 2014-02-23)

 

Contact:

 

(Sean Murphy) Administrator

Protection of Conscience Project

 

7120 Tofino St.

Powell River

British Columbia

Canada V8A 1G3

 

Tel: 604-485-9765

E-mail: protection@consciencelaws.org

 

Posted in Abortion, Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia | Leave a comment

RU-486, the abortion pill

young woman 4

The push to allow the use of mifepristone better known as the abortion drug RU 486, continues its unrelenting march in Canada. An application was filed with Health Canada in 2012 seeking approval of this drug in our country. Promoters of RU 486 abortion use the term “medical” abortion but chemical abortion is a better descriptor. Mifepristone has been called the “gold standard” for chemical abortions by its promoters.  Gold standard, really? Many would disagree with that description including Professors Renate Klein, Janice G. Raymond and Lynette J. Dumble, all supporters of legal abortion.

Their book RU 486, mifepristone: Misconceptions, myths and morals refutes the claim that an RU 486/prostaglandin (PG) abortion is a safe and effective alternative to surgical abortion. Among the findings of their research listed on the back cover of the 2013 edition of their book,  we read: “Heavy bleeding, transfusions, vomiting, severe pain and infection are among the unpredictable adverse effects. Women have died from sepsis and cardiovascular events.”

On page 47,  Ms. Klein and colleagues write: “Researchers and clinicians minimize  the drug cocktail effect,  as they minimize other complications. As we evaluated the literature on complications, it became clear to us that the medical acceptance, without comment or criticism, of what have now become ‘minimal’, ‘tolerable’, and ‘acceptable’ side effects for women, deserves to be highlighted for what it is – unethical medical practice.”

What has the evidence revealed concerning RU 486 abortions?Consider the data of an Australian study from 2011. It compared  surgical and chemical(RU 486) abortions in South Australia over a two year period from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010. The researchers found that serious complications were higher for RU 486 abortions than surgical abortions. For first trimester abortions, the rate of severe haemorrhage was one in 3000 for the surgical patients and one in 200 for the chemical abortion patients.   The patients who used RU 486 had a higher rate of admittance to hospital following their abortions than the patients who underwent surgical abortions. The rate of admissions for surgical patients was 0.4% compared to 5.7% for users of the abortion pill.

As concerns second trimester chemical abortions, the study found that complications occurred in up to 33% of the cases reviewed by the researchers.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States reported in its Mifepristone Post marketing Adverse Event Summary through April 30, 2011 that it received notice of 2,207 cases of adverse events following RU 486 abortions.  The adverse events listed: 612 women required hospitalization, 339 experienced blood loss requiring transfusions, 256 had infections with 48 having severe infections, 58 had ectopic pregnancies and 14 women died. Seven of the women died from sepsis  involving the bacteria Clostridium sordellii. Two other deaths were caused by ruptured ectopic pregnancies.

The FDA allowed the use of Mifepristone in the U.S. in 2000. It notes in its summary concerning blood loss that that”bleeding or spotting can be expected for an average of 9-16 days, and may last up to 30 days.”

An RU-486 chemical abortion is not a simple and easy process. It requires the use of two drugs, first mifepristone than 36 to 48 hours later, it is followed by administration of a prostaglandin. In the U.S., this prostaglandin is misoprostol.

Common side effects of this abortion regimen are  cramping, abdominal pain, bleeding for many days even weeks,  back pain, vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, nausea, fatigue and chill/fever.

Ru 486 results in an incomplete abortion in some instances requiring the woman to undergo a second abortion, a surgical one to finish the process.

What does an an RU 486 abortion involve? The first drug mifepristone blocks progesterone and sloughs off the nutrient rich lining of the uterus causing the death of the developing child and the second drug misoprostol (Cytotec) stimulates contractions expelling the dead child.

Misoprostol is more commonly known as Cytotec , a drug used to treat and prevent gastric ulcers. Searle, the maufacturer of Cytotec has never approved  its product for abortion. This is considered off label use. In fact, Searle warned in 2000 that “Cytotec is not approved for the induction of labor and abortion.”

The fact that abortion supporters maintain that this abortion pill regimen is safe and effective would bring little comfort to the father of 18 year old Holly Patterson who died after an RU-486 abortion in California.

The pharmaceutical company Exelgen admitted to the Italian government in 2009 that at least 29 women worldwide had died after using the abortion pill.

A 26 year old Canadian woman  died from septic shock following an RU 486 abortion during a clinical trial of the drug in 2001 in Canada. The trial was halted after her death.

An RU 486 abortion is deadly for the unborn child and sometimes for the mother as well.

 

Posted in Abortion | Leave a comment

Discrimination against the unborn child

unbornchild - discriminationSharing photo from Human Life Alliance

Posted in Abortion, Personhood | Leave a comment

Euthanasia of newborns with disabilities

As mentioned by Andrew Coyne, Canadian professor Udo Schuklenk advances that with parental consent, the euthanasia of newborns with disabilities can be justified in some cases. Sadly, this practice is already occurring in Holland and Belgium. In a seven year span 22 babies with spina bifida were euthanized in Holland. A survey of Dutch neonatologists published in the Lancet of April 2005 found that there were 15 to 20 cases of infant euthanasia a year. There were 17 cases of infant euthanasia by administration of lethal drugs in Flanders, Belgium in a one year period according to another study in the Lancet.

Doctors have at their disposal the means to provide pain relief without resorting to euthanasia. If the condition is not fatal, an infant with proper care will continue to live.

The notion that others can decide if a life is worth living is truly frightening. Killing the child based on an assessment of his quality of life and future prospects is eugenics thinly disguised as compassion.

baby foot

Posted in Euthanasia | Leave a comment

Sliding down the slippery slope of euthanasia

elderly personA letter writer to the Ottawa Citizen approved of Steven Fletcher’s bills which would legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia. Many persons with disabilities fear and reject these practices. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities has spoken out against Mr. Fletcher’s bills.

Whether euthanasia or assisted suicide, safeguards will not protect the vulnerable. In Belgium and Holland where euthanasia is legal, studies show that patients have been euthanized without consent or explicit request. Oregon law allows assisted suicide where the physician provides a prescription for a lethal dose for the patient. Patients Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup received letters from the Oregon Health Plan refusing to pay for cancer drugs  and offering palliative care or assisted suicide instead. Both were distressed by the refusal to cover the medications and the offer of assisted suicide.

So when the letter writer mentions the financial costs of delivering health care to the very elderly who would prefer “assisted dying” instead, Canadians should take notice.  Killing the patient by lethal injection or providing a prescription for a lethal dose of drugs is less costly but it is not health care nor is it death with dignity. The fear of being a burden and economic pressures are a dangerous mix.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide provide neither compassion nor mercy.

Photo shared from American Life League

Posted in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia | Leave a comment