Should We Recriminalize Euthanasia

Saturday, May 7, 2016

Garnet Genuis MP: Without amendments, euthanasia Bill C-14 "will protect no one."

Garnett Genuis is the Member of Parliament from Sherwood Park / ­Fort Saskatchewan.

Garnet Genuis

I want to be clear that I do not believe in an all-or-nothing approach. Many of my colleagues and I who have broad philosophical concerns about what is happening here are still willing to vote in favour of legislation that does not re-criminalize euthanasia, if it advances positively in the direction of saving some lives, especially minimizing the risk to vulnerable persons. However, this legislation does not contain meaningful safeguards. Without amendment, it will protect no one.

We know that this law has written exceptions. However, it has exceptions to the exceptions; and may I say it has exceptions to the exceptions that are not at all exceptional?

This legislation has a requirement for the provision of written consent. However, if people cannot provide written consent, someone else can do it on their behalf.

This legislation prescribes a waiting period. However, the waiting period does not apply in the event of possible imminent death or loss of capacity.

There is so much ambiguity here.

The government has said that mental illness is excluded. However, in section 241.2(2) the legislation clearly states that physical or psychological suffering qualifies a person to seek premature death.

The legislation says that death must be “reasonably foreseeable”. May I say that death is reasonably foreseeable for all of us? It is those who think that death is not reasonably foreseeable who probably need the medical attention. Why not put in the word “terminal”? When I was learning to drive, my mother thought that death was “reasonably foreseeable” every time we got into the car. That is no criterion.

There is a requirement that two physicians sign off. However, given the huge ambiguities, obviously doctors are likely to have a wide range of interpretations of the rules. The estimates are that there are 77,000 physicians in this country, and the likely practice of doctor-shopping will ensure that people who think they meet the wooly and ambiguous criteria can somewhere find two physicians.

The member for Victoria said earlier today that this is something doctors do every day. No, it is not. Doctors do not take lives every day. This is fundamentally different from the normal practice of medicine. When we have so many different doctors and opinions to choose from, these are not effective safeguards.

Given these five comically ridiculous exceptions to the exceptions, there is no doubt that detailed provincial legislation or regulation will be required in every case. Therefore, it is not at all clear to me what this law is supposed to accomplish.

Further, there are two key areas where the prevailing rules under this law would leave us demonstrably worse off than the Carter ruling alone.

First, there is a terrifying clause in this bill, which states that if someone kills someone else but can demonstrate, at least beyond a reasonable doubt, that he or she had a reasonable but mistaken belief that the criteria applied then that person cannot be penalized. We can find that at 241(6). Therefore, we can kill someone who did not consent and escape prosecution on the basis of reasonable but mistaken belief. Whatever is done, I implore the government to take this very dangerous section out. This is going even beyond the Belgian model.

Second, this legislation provides no protection for conscience rights, despite the court's clear statement that nothing in this decision required particular health care practitioners to be involved, and despite the clear assurance of the Canadian Medical Association that access does not require taking away section 2 conscience rights.

This legislation constitutes a perfect storm. Ambiguous criteria, no advance legal review, no conscience protection, and allowances for doctor-shopping are not meaningful safeguards at all. The bill leaves patients, seniors, the sick, and the disabled vulnerable to error and systemic abuse. We have seen this in Belgium before. I have quoted the studies during questions and comments. We do not want to go down this road in Canada at all. . . .

This article was published by Choice is an Illusion on May 2, 2016.

Nuances

Whatever is happening to me is very disturbing.  It seems that it has been forever that I wake up  in the morning soaking wet to flashbacks of what happened to Randy and me.

None of what happened was necessary.  The best I can conclude is that it was cultural; the professional health care personnel most of who I dealt with were professionals from other cultures rather than Canada and the nuances of their culture dictate negatively into our health care system.  Coming from regimes of corruption will only transfer to our culture.  At one time CBC was the standard of behavior we knew; now that does not exist. How can you quickly culturize new Canadians. Waiting two generations is too long.

Randy Michael Walker, R.I.P. (10 December 1956, 13 April 2014).

It is two years today that Randy died.  I am not sure of what, but he died.  He was given a green burial on Victoria Island; under a small cliff, under a canopy of trees, his wooden coffin was draped with long-lasting pink carnations.  A pink carnation means "I will never forget you."

Euthanasia and the Outlier Defence

In Lynn Smith's reasons for her declaratory orders, it would seem only a few would use assisted suicide or euthanasia per year. To me, that would mean one or two individuals.  It would only be used in exceptional circumstances;  Lynn said a means of last resort. However, I was wrong, it is more like one percent of all deaths. 

This is what I received from the euthanasia prevention people this morning April 16, 2016, in answer to how many are going to use MAD (medically assisted death) in Canada.

Probably less than 1% in the beginning but in 3 - 5 years there will be 4% of deaths.

There were 268,000 deaths in 2014. Therefore, there will be 10,000 or more deaths in 3 - 5 years and probably 20,000 deaths in 2025.

The medical vultures are already going in for the $kill. The first death in Canada per Carter  was done by Dr. Ellen Wiebe, she has already started a clinic, to much media applause, in Vancouver, being a good death clinic.

And since your family physician, if you are lucky enough to have one, will not want to get involved in any of this, he will refer you to Dr. Ellen, a stranger. And you will die in a sterile clinic. I wonder who funded her clinic.

There is no law yet and already there has been four individuals that have used the exemption clause: two died in BC and another approved in BC and another approved in Manitoba.  Three have died in Quebec under its own law to hasten death. There could be more but the white wall of silence prevents disclosure. The public might never know of  further deaths unless the Death with Dignity people leak out the information to the media as a good news story.

And who is paying the $10,000 or more to do the court applications and the costs of travel to the good death clinic in Vancouver to make these deaths a good news story.  Was it on the condition that the participants participate. When Bill C-14 passes, hopefully, it does not, there will be no legal fees as a doctor will make the order, not a judge.  This also means there will be no transparency.  No oversight; just the truth of health care professionals.

Bill C-14 has to be defeated.  Contact your MLA and MP and say you want to veto Bill C-14 and invoke the "notwithstanding clause". We have to study this further to make sure the safeguards are safe and cannot be circumvented.  Collateral deaths are not allowed: we are not at war.

We as a society did not contract for lethal injection at the HEMLOCK AID CLINIC.  Dr. Ellen could have come up with a less vomitoid name.  Hemlock is dark... very very dark.  Does anyone know how the very very very rich die, the 1%,  I have read that it is the 1% who want the rest of us to die as soon as we are not productive.

Non-ambivalent

I do not like the fact that the word non-ambivalent was taken out from Lynn Smith's declaratory order in 2012, see 2015 Appeal.

You will never forget/forgive the doctor who euthanasized your loved one, with or without consent

April 4, 2016

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

Office of the Prime Minister

80 Wellington Street

Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

To the Honourable Prime Minister Trudeau,

I am writing to you out of deep concern for the legislation that will soon be drafted regarding physician assisted suicide. I am so concerned, that I produced videos on the websites, DearGodLetter.ca and CherDieuLettre.ca, in the hope that more Canadians would be informed about the potential ramifications of such legislation.

As a medical doctor, there are many arguments I could provide detailing why physician assisted suicide is wrong for Canada. But the one argument that many have overlooked is the very real likelihood that physician assisted suicide in Canada would actually lead to more pain and suffering in Canada—not less.

Let me explain:

As a pain specialist I have evaluated hundreds of car accident victims over the past several years.  Interestingly, the patient suffering chronic pain from injuries sustained in the crash is almost always the victim—rarely the individual(s) responsible for the crash. Many falsely believe these patients are just trying to scam the system. While this might be the case in rare circumstances, almost always these victims have legitimate chronic pain.

Research has demonstrated that when the mind is clouded by negative emotions, such as anger, hate, bitterness, or depression, the body is unable to properly “turn off” pain signals arising from lower in the body. Car accident victims are often angry at the individual(s) who hit them, and frequently develop low mood and/or anxiety. All these negative emotions play a role in the development of chronic pain by way of something pain specialists call, “Central sensitization.” Peripheral sensitization and maladaptive central nervous system (i.e. brain) neuronal plasticity are also factors in the genesis of chronic pain. 

How does this relate to physician assisted suicide? 

If the recommendations provided by the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying become law, there will be many teenagers, parents, and grandparents killed against the will of their family members (especially those suffering from depression). Prime Minister Trudeau, it won’t be long and your children will be teenagers. You wouldn’t want someone to kill your teenagers against your will.  Why then would you want to kill other teenagers against the will of their parents?

A family can eventually learn to forgive a member who rashly commits suicide on their own. However, it will be extremely hard—if not impossible—for Canadian families to forgive the doctors and politicians responsible for their loved one’s death. The same rage that the Goldman’s displayed against O. J. Simpson will be the same anger directed at you and many others by Canadian families. These angry family members will be at significantly greater risk of developing depression and anxiety, with a high likelihood of developing chronic pain from even minor injuries—and sometimes no injury at all. For every one person you kill against the will of the family, you run a very high risk of triggering a lifetime of mental and/or physical illness/pain in at least one family member—and possibly the entire family.

Furthermore, there are over 5,000 physicians across Canada in the Coalition for HealthCARE and Conscience, committed to protecting conscience rights for health practitioners and facilities. Many will refuse to kill their patients, and refuse to refer patients to be killed. For every doctor’s license you consequently take away, you will erase on average at least 2,000 patient encounters per doctor per year. Then there’s the doctors who will just quietly leave the country, and those who will refuse to move to Canada because of the hostile environment where doctors are forced to work against their consciences. Then add to this the number of healthcare professionals who will drop out of palliative care and Geriatrics for fear of losing their licenses. Do the math and the number of Canadians affected are staggering.

Will all this not result in even more pain and suffering for Canadians in the end?

Yes, there will always be individuals who want to kill themselves at the first diagnosis of a chronic disease. And there will always be arguments saying that not everyone has equal access to quality palliative care across Canada where adequate pain control is very often achieved. But what kind of country would rather kill its citizens than provide the necessary care and compassion they deserve?

Will the Liberal Party be popular with Canadians 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years from now? 

Will the Liberal Party be popular with the Person who created the teenagers, parents, and grandparents that you will kill? 

Thank you very much for your kind attention to this letter.

Sincerely,

Brad Burke, MD, FRCPC

Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation

Cc The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice

Slippery Slope is happening

OPINIONEND OF LIFEThu May 21, 2015 - 4:38 pm EST

Dutch court acquits man who euthanized his mother after doctor refused

 Euthanasia , Netherlands

May 21, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A Dutch appeals court acquitted a 74-year-old man earlier this month of the murder of his mother in 2008, because he acted in an “emergency situation”: the woman wanted euthanasia and had not obtained it from her family doctor.

The decision is a surprising one, even in the Netherlands, and will probably be followed by an appeal from the public prosecutor, who has already published a communiqué reminding the public that euthanasia and assisted suicide “are and remain, in the eyes of the prosecutor, exclusively to be performed by a doctor.”

As it stands, the decision marks a new step down the slippery slope of euthanasia. The decision justifies an act of euthanasia contrary to the letter of the law on the grounds that the accused, Albert Heringa, was careful to act in compliance with the law’s provisions.

Albert Heringa acted in accordance with his conscience of his own duty and he was right to do so, ruled the Arnhem-Leeuwarden appeals court, because his sense of duty “justly” carried more weight than the legal prohibition of the act, which in theory can only be decriminalized when performed by a medical doctor under strict conditions.

The accused said he was “very happy” about the decision. The Netherlands Right to Die Society (NVVE) hailed it as “a step in the direction we want to follow.” “Many people who consider their life complete wish to be helped by loved ones,” said its spokeswoman, Fiona Zonneveld.

The judges did not take into account the fact that Albert Heringa’s mother, “Moek,” was deemed ineligible for euthanasia by her doctor.

In 2008, Moek was 99. She had no grave illness; she was just old and blind and did not feel like living any longer, calling her suffering “unbearable” and “without hope of improvement.” When her doctor refused euthanasia on those grounds, she turned to her son who decided to help his mother die.

He was later to explain that his mother started hoarding her medication in order to kill herself through an overdose. The pills she was taking would not have been able to bring about her death, he argued, but would have made her health much worse. This was confirmed during the subsequent judicial enquiry.

Heringa decided to go to work “transparently,” filming his every gesture in view of the killing of his mother. He used an overdose of his own malaria pills together with sleeping pills and anti-emetics to poison her. The films were later used to illustrate a documentary on “Moek’s last wish,” which was aired in 2010 on Dutch TV. The appeals court judges took this “transparency” into account in their decision to acquit him.

The public prosecution was not so lax. Despite the “rectitude” of Heringa’s intention, it accused the man of not having acted in compliance with the law. In 2013, he was judged guilty but exempted from punishment. The prosecution appealed that decision, demanding a three months suspended prison sentence in order to underscore the illegality of his actions. But the Arnhem-Leeuwarden appeals court went even further than the first judges in exonerating him completely.

They invoked the euthanasia law, which decriminalizes euthanasia when no other “reasonable solution” is available to alleviate a patient’s suffering and thus avoid euthanasia, but in this case they equated the potential “reasonable solution” with the ability to find a doctor who would be willing to perform the act, as if euthanasia were a patient right. Heringa could not find one, therefore he was justified in taking the law in his own hands, the judgment says in substance.

This marks a double revolution. Firstly, the court overlooked the legal requirement that a doctor should perform euthanasia, and no one else. Secondly, it justified euthanasia on a woman who was simply “tired of living,” a situation for which the euthanasia law definitely does not provide.

But this is just another element of the Pandora’s box that was opened when the Netherlands legalized euthanasia in 2002. Increasingly, regional control commissions, which verify all declared acts of euthanasia retrospectively, have cleared “mercy-killings” of elderly people who had multiple complaints but no single life-threatening disease. “Intolerable suffering” is being interpreted more and more widely. In Heringa’s case, it is simply his mother’s plea for euthanasia that justified the act in the eyes of the court.

The court even went so far as to say that Heringa would have had to live with a “sense of guilt until the end of his life” had he not taken measures to end his mother’s life.

In 2011, the Dutch medical association KNMG changed its position on “intolerable suffering,” declaring that “unbearable and hopeless” suffering can result from other causes than physical illness. Also, the End of Life Clinic founded in 2012 caters to euthanasia requests that have been refused by patients’ family doctors on conscientious or medical grounds. Would Heringa have found a doctor willing to perform euthanasia on his mother in this new situation?

Whatever the answer to that question – and no one will ever know – the fact of his acquittal is a definite sign that euthanasia is being treated more and more as a right and an acceptable option in the Netherlands. It is also good news for unscrupulous family members who might find it expedient to push their relatives towards the grave.

.