Hike for Life Coming Soon! Check our website for more details. Don't miss it!
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- June 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- June 2011
- December 2010
- June 2010
- June 2009
- February 2009
Euthanasia will be legal in Quebec beginning December 10th, 2015. All 29 palliative care centres in the province have indicated that they will not offer euthanasia on their premises. The palliative care department of the Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM) will not provide euthanasia as well.
Dr. Gaétan Barrette, Quebec’s Health Minister is not pleased and accused institutions refusing to participate in euthanasia of “administrative fundamentalism”. He threatened palliative care physicians working at CHUM with disciplinary sanctions for not offering euthanasia.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Ménard, lawyer and architect of Bill 52 is questioning whether the Quebec government should continue funding palliative care centres. A portion of the funding comes from public revenue and the rest from donations.
Bill 52, which made euthanasia legal, allows palliative care institutions to continue to offer only palliative care.
Dr. Catherine Ferrier, president of the Physicians’ Alliance Against Euthanasia told LifesiteNews: “…BUT they have known for five years that nobody involved in palliative care wants anything to do with assisted suicide or euthanasia. Cutting funds to hospices will only hurt patients.”
Palliative care physicians refusing to be involved in euthanasia is not unique to Quebec. A 2015 survey of palliative care physicians conducted by the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians found that 73% of respondents were opposed to the legalization of euthanasia. The majority of respondents to the survey believe “that euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, if legalized, should not be provided by palliative care services or palliative care physicians.”
Dr. Susan MacDonald, president of the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians is quoted in a Toronto Star report for September saying: “We have concerns about the safeguards and the qualification of the people who will do this practice and what training they have, because there’s no physician in Canada currently trained to go around killing people.”
Killing people is what euthanasia is all about. The introduction of euthanasia in palliative care settings would cause harm as some patients would fear these centres.
Gerbert van Loenen, a Dutch journalist once “regarded euthanasia as a symbol of Dutch progressiveness” but now “I have changed into a person who is more reserved on the subject “. Van Loenen ‘s book came about after noticing the harsh attitude of Dutch people when they speak about persons with disabilities. Van Loenen’s partner Niek was left with disabilities following surgery for removal of a brain tumour. Born of personal experience, his book provides an in depth analysis of euthanasia in the Netherlands. Barbara Kay, a columnist for the National Post wrote two articles about the book offering readers much information about the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands.
Kay’s first article (National Post – January 28) examined the Dutch euthanasia law. Euthanasia advocates and others often cite a right to autonomy and “self-determination,” as a reason to allow euthanasia and assisted suicide. Van Loenen explains that is not the reason behind the Netherlands legal acceptance of euthanasia. From Kay’s article:
But the Netherlands’ euthanasia law does not recognize any such right. In 1984, the country’s Supreme Court accepted euthanasia, but rejected self-determination as the driver. The law in fact focuses on the right of the physician to exercise his compassion in what is deemed a “situation of necessity.” Citizens “may request,” but cannot demand, euthanasia. So in fact the law endorses a species of medical “paternalism.” Van Loenen claims this compassion-based perspective “is the opposite of self-determination,” which he continues to support.
What happens when euthanasia is allowed? Kay continues:
One of van Loenen’s settled convictions is that what begins in compassion invariably creeps over to the dark side. Up to 1,000 Dutch citizens are killed every year without express consent, according to van Loenen, either because they are incompetent (dementia) or in comas, or too young. In 14% of the without-consent cases, people are actually competent, but not consulted. Typical reasons given for euthanasia by doctors in such cases are “consultation would have done more harm than good,” or “this course of action was clearly the best one for this patient,” or it was “the request or wish of family” — a far cry from the self-determination principle debate began with.
These doctors have acted outside the law, but are rarely convicted, as judges are reluctant to call “termination of life without request”… murder. Indeed, van Loenen says, cultural acceptance of euthanasia has progressed to the point that it is no longer the physician who ends someone’s life without request who must justify his actions; rather it is the physician who decides to prolong a life perceived as meaningless who feels societal pressure.
Van Loenen’s books highlights what Kay describes as a most “unsettling aspect of this fascinating and informative book…- the “better off dead” person – as the discussion turns more and more to the sensibilities of those who are affronted by his continued existence. “
Her second article explains the expansion of euthanasia once it is permitted. She writes:
Once you accept the logic that suffering justifies killing, it is not easy to set boundaries. The Netherlands’ experience shows that euthanasia spreads to individuals that other people — physicians or family members — consider better off dead, and that judges’ rulings tend to bend the law to satisfy the zeitgeist. Regular physician surveys offering guaranteed anonymity since 1991 concerning all end-of-life medical decisions indicate euthanasias without request are performed 300-1,000 times a year. In cases that arrive in court, judges almost invariably exonerate physicians on a “situation of necessity” principle. (According to van Loenen, there is no similar research in other countries, which makes the Netherlands “a unique laboratory that all the world can come and visit.”)
Physicians can influence patient decisions. In his book, van Loenen recounts an interview given by physician Groen-Evers to NRC Handelsblad in which he states:
Physician Groen-Evers has noticed that the demand for euthanasia depends on whether or not she raised the subject. In the past… when conversing with a terminal patient for whom no further treatment option was available, she felt obliged to speak of ‘euthanasia’… And nine times out of ten, the patient would return with a request for euthanasia. Ever since she started investigating palliative care, she consciously avoids using the E-word. “And what do you know: almost no one asks for it anymore!”
Groen-Evers said: “And patients are influenced much more than physicians realize. If you mention euthanasia, they will ask for it. If you mention palliative care, then that is what they choose.”
Mr. van Loenen’s well researched book is available from the Action Life office.
The unborn child has been described using various terms: a clump of cells, or tissue or contents of the uterus or product of conception. These terms can’t change the scientific reality that a human being exists at every stage of development.
The third photo shows an unborn child at 20 weeks after conception.
Photo from Live Action.
The government of Quebec passed Bill 52 legalizing euthanasia in June 2014, calling it ‘medical aid in dying’. Euthanasia can be provided in the province beginning December 10, 2015. The province has no jurisdiction in making legal what is a matter for the Criminal Code of Canada. Euthanasia is prohibited by the Criminal Code. But the provincial government called euthanasia “health care” and since health care is a provincial jurisdiction, the government proceeded with its own agenda and the bill was adopted by a vote of 94 to 22.
This was done prior to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter v. Canada in February 2015 striking down Sections 241 and 14 of the Criminal Code which forbid assisted suicide (241)and euthanasia (14). The Supreme Court suspended its judgement for one year giving the federal government 12 months to draft new legislation if it so chooses.
The law in Quebec comes into effect on December 10, 2015. The prohibition against euthanasia in Canada will still be in force.
Regardless of the euphemism used to describe euthanasia, ‘medical aid in dying’ is not health care, it is killing.
Now the Quebec College of Physicians in its “Practice guideline for medical aid in dying” is ordering physicians to list the cause of death on the death certificate as the underlying illness or condition rather than euthanasia. The College is thus requesting that physicians falsify the death certificate. This would be hiding the true cause of death of the patient. Where is honesty and ethics in such a practice?
The Physicians’ Alliance Against Euthanasia commented: “It goes without saying that such a practice constitutes a severe breach of ethics, and it will inevitably lead to serious abuse, in addition to distorting the official statistics on the real causes of death in Quebec.”
Lawyer Hugh Scher was counsel for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition in a number of cases including recently Carter v. Canada. He tells AdvocateDaily.com that this proposal “represents a serious threat to transparency and accountability in the application of the Quebec euthanasia regime.”
“The notion that doctors should be permitted to falsify death certificates so as to hide the true cause of death in cases of euthanasia is a troubling affront to medical ethics, transparency and accountability,” says Scher.
Suction curettage or suction aspiration is the most common method of abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. Local or general anesthetic is given to the mother. The cervix is dilated then a suction curette ( a hollow tube with a sharp cutting edge ) is inserted into the womb. This instrument is connected to a vacuum suction device by a transparent tube. The suction tears the unborn child into pieces. which are sucked through the tube into a collection bottle.
On July 17, the federal government announced the creation of an expert panel to examine the February 6th decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter v. Canada which struck down the prohibition on euthanasia and assisted suicide. The Supreme Court gave the federal government one year to enact a legislative regime if it”so chooses”. The newly appointed panel is charged with consulting with stakeholder groups and the Canadian public to provide a response concerning legislative options to the Supreme Court decision. The panel members are Dr. Harvey Chochinov, a psychiatrist and Canada Research Chair in Palliative Care at the University of Manitoba and Director of the Manitoba Palliative Care Research Unit, Catherine Frazee, a disability rights leader and past co- director of the Ryerson-RBC Institute for Disabilities Studies Research and Education and rounding out the panel is Benoit Pelletier, a member of the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa and former member of the National Assembly of Quebec. Dr. Chochinov and Catherine Frazee were both witnesses for the Crown in Carter v. Canada.
You have an opportunity to make your views known to this panel by visiting the consultation website on the web page news.gc.ca/web/article-en. Look for Consultation on legislative options for assisted dying.
Now out of Ontario, comes an announcement from the provincial government that a panel for a Provincial and Territorial Advisory Group to advise on policies and practices concerning “doctor assisted dying” has been formed.
Please note that the doctor does not assist your death, he will be causing your death.
Among the appointees of this provincial and territorial panel are Jocelyn Downie, Arthur Schafer and Maureen Taylor, all known euthanasia and assisted suicide advocates. Jocelyn Downie is a professor in the Faculty of Law at Dalhousie University, Arthur Schafer, Director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba and Maureen Taylor, a physician’s assistant, is the widow of Dr. Donald Low. Maureen Taylor called for the legalization of assisted suicide in a video released after her husband’s death.
From an article on the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition’s (EPC) blog, legal counsel for the EPC Hugh Scher commented:
The provincial and territorial inquiry into assisted suicide is premature in light of the present study under way by the Federal government. In particular, there is a serious question as to the constitutionality of provincial regimes regulating assisted death as health care, when such conduct and its regulation have historically fallen under the federal government’s criminal law powers under the Constitution.
To send an email to this provincial panel , go to www.ontario.ca/page/doctor-assisted-dying-and-end-life-decisions-consultation.
The survey for the provincial group has rather skewed questions. In one, the respondent is asked: In principle, do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the idea that a person should be able to choose how they manage their palliative and end of life care, for example when and where they die?
Well most people would support the first part that a person should be able to make decisions about palliative and end of life care but the second part about when they die is an entirely different matter. Palliative care does not involve choosing the time of your death, this is assisted suicide and euthanasia. You can choose to receive palliative care at home, in hospital or in hospice if you wish but choosing when you die is another matter. If you strongly support quality palliative care as we do, in answering this question in the affirmative, it seems you are also giving support to the notion that individuals can determine the moment of their death which can be done by euthanasia or assisted suicide.
The email option on the page allows you to state your point of view clearly and accurately.
Action Life opposes euthanasia and assisted suicide because they are killing. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not medical treatment or health care.