Delta Hospice Society

Adrian Dix, Minister of Health for the province of British Columbia is demanding that the Irene Thomas Hospice permit euthanasia (MAID) on site or he suggests it might incur a loss of government funding. This particular hospice is operated by the Delta Hospice Society. It was given a deadline of February 3rd to change its policy. The Hospice Society says that euthanasia is not compatible with its purpose and values.

Dr. Leonie Herx, President of the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians wrote a letter to the Minister of Health expressing concerns that some hospices under Fraser Health “might be mandated to provide Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID)” on their premises.  Such a requirement  “poses risk for potential harm” she writes.

“One of the biggest potential harms is to those who do not choose MAID (more than 98% of those who die as only about 1.5% choose Maid). Both the public and many health care providers have had a longstanding fear of Hospice Palliative Care because they were afraid it hastened peoples’ deaths. This has lead to late referrals and people choosing to not be referred to palliative care services that could have benefited them. For over 40 years we have ben trying to educate the public and health care professionals that Hospice Palliative Care neither hastens nor prolongs the natural process of dying.”

Read more at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vDLRHcNKsGv24sSKu9R3VLRUnJYjRsHm/view  

Action Life believes that no hospice or palliative care centre should be forced to provide euthanasia (MAID) on its premises. Many Canadians want end of life care in euthanasia free zones.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Belgian trial is unveiling dark back story to euthanasia death of Tine Nys

This article was published by Bioedge on January 26, 2020.

https://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/belgian-trial-is-unveiling-dark-back-story-to-euthanasia-death-of-tine-nys/13305

By Michael Cook

The three doctors on trial /Belga

The criminal trial of three Belgian doctors for assisting in an allegedly illegal euthanasia of a woman in 2010 is under way. It is the first time that doctors have been charged with an unlawful death since the legalisation of euthanasia in 2002. The accused have been named in the media: the doctor who administered the lethal injection, Joris van Hove; the general practitioner, Frank de Greef; and the psychiatrist, Godelieve Thienpont.

Tine Nys (center) with her sisters.

The parents and two sisters of Tine Nys have succeeded, after nine years of harassing the bureaucracy, in having charges laid. The prosecution alleges that the defendants did not follow the prescribed guidelines for euthanasia in Belgium. Tine was 38 when she died, surrounded by her family, in 2010. The doctors aver that she was suffering from a “serious and incurable disorder”. In her case, it was said to be unbearable psychological suffering.

The life of Tine Nys grew sadder with the testimony of each witness. She had been estranged from her family for years. She experienced violence in her relationships, she had an abortion, she had worked as a prostitute. “Everything in her life was a failure,” said Dr Thienpont, who diagnosed her as autistic not long before the death. 

The main lawyer for the parents and two sisters of Tine was forced to step down over a bizarre conflict of interest.  The head of Belgium’s euthanasia evaluation commission, Wim Distelmans, revealed that Fernand Keuleneer had been a non-voting member of the commission when her case was approved.  He has been replaced by Joris Van Cauter.

How the doctors broke the Belgian euthanasia law became clearer. Tine had asked Dr de Greef for a letter authorising euthanasia, but he refused. So she went to LEIF, a euthanasia agency, and found Dr van Hove. Dr van Hove dropped by Dr de Greef on the evening of April 27, 2010 at 8pm and asked him to sign a paper. Apparently de Greef misunderstood,  because he recalled being aghast when he learned that Tine had been euthanised.

This occasioned two breaches of the conditions which shield doctors from prosecution for murder. First, Dr van Hove falsely listed Dr de Greef as the first doctor confirming that Tine was eligible for euthanasia. Second, the paperwork arrived at the euthanasia commission nearly four weeks late.

This worries euthanasia doctors. One told the Belgian newspaper De Morgen, “As a doctor, will you still run the risk of performing euthanasia if you know that with that you run the risk of being prosecuted for premeditated murder? Just because your euthanasia certificate did not arrive at the committee within four days?”

Dr Joris van Hove’s seedy background was highlighted in the media coverage. He has been in court before for various offenses, including drink driving and forgery. In 2017 he was convicted of sex offences with young male patients. 

However, Dr. van Hove told the court that the euthanasia procedure had been carried out within the law. He protested that the very fact that the case had reached the stage of prosecution was a victory for the “hidden agenda” of the Catholic Church.

He admitted that he had never done a euthanasia for psychological suffering before and that he had been clumsy. He had not completed his “end of life” training and he failed to administer the lethal injection properly. He did not have a stand for the infusion and the bag plopped onto Tine’s face as she was saying goodbye to her family. 

The general practitioner, Dr Frank de Greef, painted himself as the victim of a charming but manipulative young woman and her angry relatives. When she was diagnosed as autistic by Dr Thienpont, he was thunderstruck. “When I saw that diagnosis, I thought: What kind of stupid person have I been? Look at its history, everything could be explained by that autism. Tine was engaging and intellectual, but also manipulative and looking for conflict.”

The trial continues.

Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge: bioethics news from around the world.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Yes, we know when human life begins

It’s incredible that today some claim not to know when human life begins. We have known for a very long time.

The answer to the question of when human life begins is not a religious or philosophical matter but a scientific one. Science tells us that every human life begins at fertilization (conception).
The answer is found in manuals of embryology. Here are a few examples:

1- “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p.3]

2- “Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)…This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc., 1988,p.2]

3-“…At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p.943]

4- “…The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw, 1996,p.3]

5-“Development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an ovum to from a zygote; this cell is the beginning of a new human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. The Developing Human : Clinically Oriented Embryology. W. B. Saunders, 1974, p.12]

From medical experts:

6-“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood…any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life.”
[Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, then professor of obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania]

7- “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”
[Harvard University Medical School Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth]

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Take a Hike for Life this April

Please join us on Saturday, April 18th, 2020 to take small steps in support of life and to raise much needed funds for Action Life Ottawa. Remember to save the date!

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Euthanasia statistics for Ontario shows an increase in numbers

The Office of the Chief Coroner/Ontario Forensic Pathology Service released its data on euthanasia (MAID) services in the province. At the end of December 2019, Ontario had 4,318 completed euthanasia deaths. This statistic is for the period beginning June 17, 2016 and ending December 31,2019. Of these, 4,317 were clinician administered meaning that a physician or nurse practitioner delivered the lethal injection. There was only one case of self-administration where the patient is provided with a lethal dose of drugs and ingests the lethal cocktail.

47% of euthanasia deaths occurred in hospital while 43% were done in a private residence setting. The remainder were done either in a retirement home/seniors residence or in a long term care facility or nursing home.

Cases were evenly divided between men and women: 50% men, 50% women.

Underlying conditions reported as reason for euthanasia:

Cancer- related:63%

Neurodegenerative: 11%

Circulatory/Respiratory: 17%

Other: 9%.

In 36 cases, the euthanasia death was followed by organ donation.

The data show that for Ottawa, there were 372 cases of euthanasia (MAID).

Keep in mind, when you hear the words MAID or medical assistance in dying, it means euthanasia. 

Canadians need quality palliative care not euthanasia.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Hospice offers to forego $750,00.00 in funding rather than allow euthanasia on its premises

The Fraser Health Authority has ordered the Irene Thomas Hospice in Delta, British Columbia to allow euthanasia (MAID) on site or risk losing funding. The hospice has been given a deadline of February 3rd. The Centre’s philosophy of care for patients does not include euthanasia.  The centre offers a ten bed facility for those seeking palliative care. As the Canadian Palliative Care Association and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians said in a joint statement in November: “National and international hospice palliative care organizations are unified in the position that MAID is not part of the practice of hospice palliative care.”

Angelina Ireland, president of the Delta Hospice Society said in a open letter: “Helping and supporting patients to live fully and comfortably in their last days and giving support to them and their families is what our patients and families come to us for and expect and it is certainly what our staff are dedicated to providing. Taking steps to end a patient’s life is not providing care and support so that they may live fully.”

The hospice is now offering to forego $750,000.00 in public funding. It explains: “By forfeiting the government funding, the hospice would be under the 50% threshold set by the government and therefore exempt from providing MAID.”

As for charges by euthanasia advocates that the hospice is denying access to euthanasia (MAID), Ireland points out that the service is available at other centres including at a facility next door.

She mentions  that: “The issue is not accessibility. It seems a purely agenda-driven demand that runs roughshod over both Delta Hospice Society’s desire to live up to its legal requirement under our Charter, as well as ignoring the reality that we are dealing with patients and families in a very vulnerable and delicate condition.”

The B.C government should stop pressuring this hospice and let it offer the life affirming care that it was set up to provide. Many patients are looking for care in a euthanasia (MAID)free zone.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Unethical Study Manufactures Results

 

 https://www.lifeissues.org/2019/12/unethical-study-manufactures-results/

Unethical Study Manufactures Results
December 12, 2019

by Bradley Mattes 

The chemical abortion pill is growing in use and may soon outpace surgical abortion. This evolving trend demonstrates why the Abortion Pill Reversal network of medical professionals is vital to saving babies and protecting their mothers.

A so-called study was underway to examine the effectiveness of progesterone to reverse a chemical abortion when a mother changed her mind. However, critics say its unspoken goal was to actually undermine the progesterone protocol. But the process backfired and further underscored the need for added protections for women subjected to chemical abortion.

The study’s credibility was suspect from the start and many expected its conclusion would result in a preconceived notion that abortion pill reversal is “junk science.” Consider the bias of its authors. All five are dedicated pro-abortion advocates. Mitchell D. Creinin, is an abortionist and paid consultant with Danco Laboratories which manufactures mifepristone, the chemical abortion pill. Laura Dalton is an employee of Planned Parenthood of Arizona. Collectively, Planned Parenthood is the largest chain of abortion facilities in America and the most aggressive lobbyist for extreme pro-abortion laws on both the federal and state level. Melody Y. Hou, Rachel Steward, and Melissa J. Chen have all been or are currently abortionists.

The study’s goal was to enroll 40 pregnant women who had previously decided to have a surgical abortion. After consenting to a chemical abortion and receiving the mifepristone, the women were selected randomly to be given progesterone to attempt reversing the chemical abortion or a placebo. Those whose babies were still alive after two weeks were promised a surgical abortion.


The purpose of this ethically bankrupt research was to determine if a drug effectively saves the lives of babies, and if so, they guarantee mothers a dead child in the end.
After 12 women had been enrolled, researchers abruptly ended the study because of serious health concerns for those participating. Three women experienced “severe hemorrhage requiring ambulance transport to hospital.” One lost enough blood to require a transfusion.

A critical distinction that most media outlets have not made or highlighted is that two of the three women who experienced medical emergencies were given the placebo – that is, the only active drug they received and were suffering from was the mifepristone chemical abortion drug. One had been given progesterone. The potential of lethal blood loss has been an ever-present concern with chemical abortion. The study’s hasty demise underscores the need for the FDA to more closely scrutinize Danco’s death drug.

Knowing the vested interest of the authors in the abortion industry, it didn’t take rocket science to predict how they would spin the termination of their research. “Patients” they wrote, “should be advised that not using misoprostol [the follow-up drug] could result in severe hemorrhage, even with progesterone treatment.” The truth has been twisted to such a degree it more resembles a pretzel than a research finding.

The authors further denigrate the progesterone protocol by warning women that due to the “potential dangers” of changing their minds midway through the chemical abortion process, the progesterone protocol “must be considered experimental.” Further, they stated it should be done “only in institutional review board-approved human clinical trials to ensure proper oversight.” In other words, these abortionists and abortion advocates are saying, “We got this! You can trust us.”

Those behind the Abortion Pill Reversal network report 68% of the babies have been saved with the most effective progesterone protocol. Becky Buell and Cynthia Galvan were early beneficiaries. These two mothers have living, breathing children they adore because caring pro-life medical professionals were there to assist. Their numbers are growing and cannot be ignored.
Sincerely for babies and their mothers,
Bradley Mattes
President, Life Issues Institute
Life Issues Institute is dedicated to changing hearts and minds of millions of people through education. For 27 years, organizations and individuals around the world have depended upon Life Issues Institute to provide the latest information and effective tools to protect innocent human life from womb to tomb.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

A call for conscience rights for health care professionals

 

Physicians, nurses and pharmacists must be allowed to exercise their profession according to their conscience. They should not be forced to participate in practices to which they object on conscientious grounds. For more information, visit /www.canadiansforconscience.ca/

Watch the video below to hear testimonies from health care professionals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnMu5eb9GFc&feature=youtu.be

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Update on the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: Lessons learned from Asia

From Elliot Institute News – July 22, 2019

Update on the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: Lessons Learned from Asia
By Joel Brind, Ph.D.

In 1996, I and my colleagues at Penn State Medical College published a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the peer-reviewed medical literature on the connection between induced abortion and breast cancer risk.[1] In that paper, we predicted that the U.S. would experience tens of thousands of cases of breast cancer per year, attributable to abortion, in the coming decades. While that has sadly happened, since there are so many other risk factors at play, those cases are just a small minority of the total.

However, if our data were correct, what about all the much larger populations; the literally billions of women in Asia, especially in China, where abortion has been mandatory for the second child and beyond since 1980? In India and the rest of South Asia, where, unlike China, government has not coerced abortion, abortion rates dwarf the American statistics. Moreover, breast cancer has typically been relatively rare in the developing world, including Asia.

Therefore, if we were right about abortions being a real, causal risk factor for breast cancer back in 1996, now, over 20 years later, there should be a virtual epidemic of breast cancer all over Asia at least, with abortion being a main—if not the main—culprit. Sadly again, I must report, that indeed is what has taken place.
As early as 2008, a major review in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute[2] (NCI) concluded, “China is on the cusp of a breast cancer epidemic.” Curiously, although the authors acknowledge, “the distribution of reproductive and lifestyle risk factors for Chinese women is changing rapidly,” they studiously avoid the word abortion (no surprise here really, as the NCI officially declared the abortion-breast cancer link [ABC link] nonexistent in 2003[3]). Now, a decade later, the evidence of the ABC link is exploding all over Asia.

In 2013, Hubei Huang et al. published a systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) on abortion and breast cancer just in mainland China.[9] In just over two decades (1988 – 2012), there were no less than 36 individual studies on women in China. Huang et al. reporting a statistically significant 44 percent increase in breast cancer risk for women with one or more abortion, which went up to 76 percent for women with two or more abortions, and up to 89 percent increased risk for women with three or more abortions.

In 2018, colleagues at the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute published a SRMA on the ABC link in women in South Asia: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.[v] We found that in South Asia alone, in just the past decade (2007-2017) there were no fewer than 20 studies reporting data on this issue. The results were striking. Not only were the results statistically significant, and did the relative risk go up with the number of abortions, but the overall risk increase for women with one or more abortions was 151 percent; several times higher than had been reported before anywhere in the world. Meaning, the women in the study experienced a 1.5 times increased risk of developing breast cancer after having had one or more abortions.

That unusually strong ABC link raises the obvious question: What is different about South Asian women that makes them more vulnerable to the cancer risk-increasing effect of abortion? The answer lies in the meaning of the term “relative risk.” When we say that a woman’s risk goes up 50 percent with abortion, we are comparing her to the typical, average woman who has not had an abortion within that study population. Of course, women who have not had any abortions can still get breast cancer, as there are quite a number of risk factors.

Let us take, for example, a typical woman in the U.S. She has about a 10 percent lifetime risk of breast cancer in the absence of abortion. Abortion raises that risk to about a 13 percent lifetime risk. In South Asia, the typical woman is very different from the typical American woman; not because of any genetic differences, but because of cultural and lifestyle factors. Specifically, the typical South Asian woman (especially in rural areas), gets married and starts having children while still in her teens, she has lots of them and breastfeeds all of them. Moreover, she does not drink and doesn’t smoke. All of these things keep the risk of breast cancer down, to around a 2 percent lifetime risk, on average—not 10 percent, as in the U.S.

So what is the effect of abortion? It is about the same as in the U.S., that is, it adds about a 3 percent absolute risk to the lifetime risk: It brings the 2 percent lifetime risk up to about a 5 percent lifetime risk. As a relative term, it raises the 2 percent risk by 2.5-fold (150 percent), but in absolute terms, it’s the same 3 percent.

Another way to look at this statistic is to picture 200 average American women, half of whom have not had an abortion and half of whom have had an abortion. Of the former group, an average of 10 women will get breast cancer sometime in their life, whereas in the latter group, 13 women will get breast cancer. Now if we look instead at South Asian women, only about two of the women who had not experienced abortion will get breast cancer in their lifetime, but about five of the post-abortive women will get breast cancer; i.e., 3 percent more of them. (But in relative terms, 5 percent is 150 percent more than 2 percent.)

So we can see that women are the same the world over, in terms of what causes breast cancer, and it’s only about 3 percent of women who get an abortion will get breast cancer because of it. At first, 3 percent doesn’t sound like much. But consider that in China and India alone, there are about 1.4 billion women now alive. If about 30 percent of them have an abortion at some point in their life that would be 420 million women. Three per cent of 420 million comes out to 12.6 million who are likely to get breast cancer because of their abortions! Add to that the fact the mortality rate for breast cancer in that part of the world is close to 50 percent (in the U.S. it’s about 20 percent), and we’re talking about over 6 million women now alive in China and India who can be expected to die of breast cancer because they had an abortion!

Meanwhile, back in the States, the prestigious National Academy of Science and Medicine has weighed on the safety of abortion. In its recent policy publication: “The Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the United States,[6]” the authors “debunked” the ABC link, relying on just three research papers. These three papers were old (2000, 2001 and 2005), flawed, and fraudulent — i.e. willfully false and misleading. I debunked them in the peer reviewed medical literature many years ago:

Newcomb & Mandelson, 2000 (USA):
Newcomb et al. had previously published a study in which they reported a 23 percent increased risk with abortion, with borderline statistical significance.[7] A scientifically valid effort to verify or nullify this finding in a subsequent study would require a study population that would yield greater statistical power than the prior study (i.e., a much larger study), yet the latter study was of much lower statistical power. Apparently, this was because it gave them the result they were looking for, so they could say that their “results do not support a relation between induced abortion and breast cancer incidence.[8]”

Goldacre et al., 2001 (England)[9]
Goldacre’s very large 2001 study was based on records for both abortion and breast cancer from the British National Health Service (NHS) database on residents of Oxford, UK, over a 30-year period (1968- 1998), so it appeared to provide a robust analysis. However, the database showed that scarcely more than 1 percent of patients (300 out of 28,616) had a record of induced abortion over the entire 30-year period, whereas the recorded abortion rate for the whole UK exceeded 1 percent per year for that period. Hence, more than 90 percent of women in the study who had had an abortion were misclassified as abortion-negative. That’s because most abortions in England are not done at NHS hospitals. Even the authors admitted that their “data on abortion are substantially incomplete.” But even that is an understatement: The study is worthless, even though the authors claimed, fraudulently, that abortion “does not increase the risk of breast cancer.”[10]

Brewster et al., 2005 (Scotland)[11]
The 2005 case-control study of Brewster et al. was nested in a nationwide database of Scottish NHS records of reproductive history and cancer diagnoses, and the authors present evidence to support their claim that their data on induced abortion “seem likely to be reasonably complete.” But inexplicably, the authors restricted the inclusion of women with any pre-1981 reproductive history to “those with some reproductive events occurring before 1981, and (for whom) number of pregnancies equaled number of births—that is, no miscarriages or induced abortions before 1981.” This arbitrary, unexplained and illegitimate cherry picking of who was included in the study meant the wholesale elimination of women for whom abortion preceded the first live birth. It distorted the abortion statistics beyond recognition, but it enabled the authors to come up a completely unsubstantiated and invalid conclusion that abortion provides a slight protective effect against breast cancer! The extreme bias in the study’s design and analysis, render it worthless for meaningful conclusions.[12]

In the world of abortion research, fake science has prevailed among the arbiters of public health information for almost 40 years, even as the real devastation takes its toll around the world: Breast cancer is now the leading cause of death of middle-aged women worldwide, in many instances thanks to abortion.

~~~

Joel Brind, PhD, is a professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College of the City University of New York, where he has been teaching since 1986. He has been researching the abortion-breast cancer link since 1992. This article was originally published on Care Net’s Center Insights blog at care-net.org. Reprinted with permission.

References

1. Brind J, Chinchilli VM, Severs WB, Summy-Long J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 1996;50:481-496.
2. Linos L, Spanos D, Rosner BA et al. Effects of Reproductive and Demographic Changes on Breast Cancer Incidence in China: A Modeling Analysis J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100: 1352–60
3. National Cancer Institute. (2010, January 12). Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk: 2003 Workshop. Retrieved May 14, 2019, from https://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/abortion-miscarriage-risk#summary-report
4. Huang Y, Zhang X, Li W et al. A meta-analysis of the association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk among Chinese females. Cancer Causes Control 2014;25:227-36. doi:10.1007/s10552-013-0325-7 Epub 2013.
5. Brind J, Condly SJ, Lanfranchi A, Rooney, B. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on South Asian women. Issues Law Med 2018;33-54.
6. Committee on Reproductive Health Services: The Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the United States. A Consensus Study Report of The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. Washington DC: The National Academies Press, 2018. Available at: http://nap.edu/24950
7. Newcomb PA, Mandelson MT. A record-based evaluation of induced abortion and breast cancer risk (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2000;11:777-781
8. Brind J. Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies Based on Prospective Data. J Am Physicians Surgeons 2005;10:105-110.
9. Goldacre MJ, Kurina LM, Seagroatt V, Yeates D. Abortion and breast cancer: a case-control record linkage study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:336-337
10. Brind JL, Chinchilli VM. Letter: Abortion and breast cancer. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002;56:237-238
11. Brewster DH, Stockton DL, Dobbie R, et al Risk of breast cancer after miscarriage or induced abortion: a Scottish record linkage casecontrol study. 2005;59:283-287.
12. Brind J. Methodological concerns re: abortion and breast cancer in Scotland. J Epidemiol Community Health 2005 e-letter. Available at: https://jech.bmj.com/content/59/4/283.responses

Learn More:
Study of 36 Chinese Abortion-Breast Cancer Studies a “Game Changer,” Says Scientist
Induced Abortion Raises Breast Cancer Risk by More Than 20-Fold, Study Finds
New Study’s Reported Findings on Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Are Hyperinflated
The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link, Part I: Those Stubborn Facts Again
The Abortion Breast Cancer Link, Part II: The Cover Up
The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link, Part III: The Dagger Under the Table
The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link, Part IV: The Biology
How to Recognize a Cover-Up of the Abortion/Breast Cancer Link
Ideological Bias Risking the Lives of Young Women

For the most extensive online library of published studies on the physical and psychological effects of abortion, visit www.abortionrisks.org.

Shared from The Elliot Institute, Springfield, Illinois.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

BC Health Minister Says He Will force the Delta Hospice to Kill

Thursday, December 12, 2019

by Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director – Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be Forced to do Euthanasia .

https://citizengo.org/en/signit/175861/view

The BC Health Minister, Adrian Dix, declared yesterday that the BC government will take action if the Delta hospice refuses to kill its patients.

Adrian Dix has suggested that they will stop funding the 10 bed Delta Hospice if it refuses to kill.

On December 2, I reported that the Board of the Delta BC Hospice Society that operates the Irene Thomas Hospice in Ladner BC, renewed its position opposing euthanasia (MAiD) while supporting excellent care. The Board stated:

“MAiD is not compatible with the Delta Hospice Society purposes stated in the society’s constitution, and therefore, will not be performed at the Irene Thomas Hospice.”


In its recent Call to Action, the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians stated that MAiD (euthanasia) is not part of hospice palliative care. They stated:
“MAiD is not part of hospice palliative care; it is not an “extension” of palliative care nor is it one of the tools “in the palliative care basket”. National and international hospice palliative care organizations are unified in the position that MAiD is not part of the practice of hospice palliative care.
…Hospice palliative care sees dying as a normal part of life and helps people to live and die well. Hospice palliative care does not seek to hasten death or intentionally end life.” 


The Delta Optimist newspaper reported, on December 7, that Fraser Health informed the Delta Hospice that their position is at odds with the policy of Fraser Health. A spokesperson for Fraser Health told the Delta Optimist that:
“The region noted it fully supports a patient’s right to receive medical assistance in dying wherever they may be, including in a hospice setting.”


The position of the Delta Hospice is not new. In February 2018, the Delta Hospice was ordered by Fraser Health to provide euthanasia. The Delta Hospice did not comply with the Fraser Health edict.

If the Delta Hospice closes, the residents of Delta will lose the 10 bed hospice that is known for providing excellent end-of-life care.

If the Delta Hospice is forced to do euthanasia, then all Canadian Hospice groups will be forced to do euthanasia.
Sign the petition: Hospice Organizations Must NOT be Forced to do Euthanasia (Link).
https://citizengo.org/en/signit/175861/view

Used with permission of the EPC.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 2 Comments