Wrapped in euphemisms and double-talk, another long step toward making it legal in Canada for doctors to deliberately end the life of patients in certain circumstances has been taken.

Bloc Québécois Francine Lalonde's private member's bill to accomplish that has received first reading in the House of Commons. It is likely within the next month or two to receive the standard one hour of debate by MPs at second reading, unless an election is called. A majority vote in favour could send her startlingly brief bill for study by a Commons committee.

Startlingly also, among those eligible to be legally killed by a doctor might be depressed 18-year-old teenagers who refuse their medications. A doctor would also no longer commit a crime by supplying a lethal dose to enable such depressed teenagers to kill themselves. That could be your grandchild if Lalonde's bill became law in its present form.

It's all a long way from what many people think of as a suitable case for euthanasia: an elderly person who is terminally ill and in excruciating pain who repeatedly and unmistakably asks for death. There is probably the support of most Canadians for exempting your doctor from a murder charge in that strictly limited case.

This kind of obfuscation is a striking characteristic of campaigners for the so-called "right to die with dignity," which in reality means making it legal for somebody else to kill you or to help you commit suicide. . . .

In Oregon , state officials have conceded that they really don't know how many people have been prescribed a lethal dose of drugs to kill themselves, only those that have been reported by doctors.

Universally among existing and proposed euthanasia and assisted-suicide laws, what the legislation actually says is not at all what the supporters of it campaigned on, and what they said the safeguards would prevent. Lalonde's bill is no exception. Here are examples:

-- The bill says any person age 18 or over who "appears to be lucid" and who has tried or refused available treatments and "continues to experience severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief" would be eligible to be assisted to commit suicide if the rules are followed. Note that "mental pain." Seniors who have lived through periods of deep depression will recall that at the time there seemed to be no prospect of relief.

-- The bill says that certifying the person is suffering such pain or is terminally ill would be up to medical practitioners, defined as "a person duly qualified by provincial law to practise medicine." Does this include my dermatologist, my podiatrist? For "mental pain," there should surely be a requirement to consult a psychiatrist?

-- The bill's wording means that people living with disabilities or with chronic conditions would be vulnerable. Such sufferers can be considered by others, and often are, as having no prospect of relief and wishing to die. The sufferers themselves may well have a different opinion.

-- The bill's wording would allow you to be killed legally when you have become incompetent to make the choice, if you had earlier given written authority while you appeared to be lucid to another person to act on your behalf when you no longer appear to be lucid. Better be careful about the wording of your mandate or advance directive.

-- The bill's wording has no definition of terminal illness. A diagnosis could become an immediate death warrant, no matter what your chances of survival might be or if the diagnosis is wrong.

-- The bill's restriction of eligibility based on age would probably be ruled unconstitutional if it became law and was legally tested. As in the Netherlands - where it is now legal for doctors to kill infants, if parents agree, if they believe their patients' suffering is intolerable or incurable- this might mean that eventually babies could become eligible.

Canada 's Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has urged Canadians to contact their federal MP to oppose Lalonde's bill.

Its website (www.epcc.ca) provides sample letters you can download and use as a model.

"This bill is not about choice," coalition director Alex Schadenberg warns. "It's protection for doctors."

With great caution, the Quebec College of Physicians is prepared to cross the line on the controversial debate over euthanasia and propose that it be included “as part of the appropriate care in certain particular circumstances.”

After examining the issue for three years, the College's task force on ethics concluded that Quebec society has evolved to the point where it could tolerate euthanasia in specific circumstances. The task force's recommendation will likely be part of a “reflection” document the College will release next fall, hoping that a public debate on the issue will pressure the federal government to eventually amend the criminal code.

“We are being very cautious in our approach,” said the College's secretary, Yves Robert. “Avoiding the debate contributes to the general hypocrisy around this issue. To say that it doesn't happen because it is illegal is completely stupid. … We have to stop hiding our head in the sand,” Dr. Robert said.

It is common knowledge that physicians often have no choice but to constantly increase medication such as morphine to alleviate the pain and suffering of terminally ill patients.

Sometimes, the pain is so unbearable that the amount of painkillers or analgesics used to control it can be fatal. And this, according to the Quebec College of Physicians, can be viewed as a form of euthanasia.

“The question here is to decide whether a drop in dosage or an increase in dosage constitutes a criminal act,” Dr. Robert said. “We may go as far as to recommend that in certain cases, where the pain is unbearable, the amount of analgesic required could correspond to a form of euthanasia.”

The College wants to avoid a divisive confrontation between those who are for or against euthanasia, saying such a debate would solve nothing. Instead, the debate should be about the doctor's role in accompanying a terminally ill patient toward the inevitability of death, offering as much dignity and medical assistance as possible. “There's not a politician or a lawyer that can tell me what that entails,” Dr. Robert said.

The College says there are three conditions required in order to amend the criminal code, which currently defines euthanasia as a criminal act. The first would require that the decision be made in accordance with the patient's will. A physician alone could not decide, Dr. Robert said. The second condition would require that clear rules be established to protect society from abuses. And thirdly, the doctor has to be part of the decision-making process and not someone who simply carries out orders.

Quebec physicians are adamant in stating their position excludes assisted suicides, which is practised in Switzerland and in some parts of the United States . There have been a few rare cases where Canadians have died at the assisted-suicide clinic Dignitas in Switzerland , but the College opposes the practice.

Right-to-die groups in Quebec believe the province's College of Physicians has taken a “bold, cautious and realistic” approach that will have considerable impact on the rest of the country. . . . .

APress Release from Signal Hill
June 25, 2009

Euthanasia Bill a Threat to Canadians

Euthanasia should not be permitted in Canada because the practice would put at risk Canadians who are already in a weak position, says a B.C.-based educational organization.

“This issue is very troubling,” says Yvonne Douma, Executive Director of Signal Hill. “It would place many Canadians who are vulnerable through illness, depression or disability to the risk of making an irreversible, life-threatening choice.”

In May of this year, Quebec Member of Parliament Francine Lalonde introduced Bill C-384, a bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. It proposes adding an amendment to the Criminal Code, exempting from criminal prosecution doctors who help a patient to die. Those eligible for euthanasia would be at least 18 years of age. They would suffer from terminal illness or "experience severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief," whether or not they had received treatment.

Signal Hill is a human rights organization that provides women and families with supportive education on life issues, helping them make informed and life-affirming decisions.

The group believes that a medical culture that views euthanasia as a legitimate treatment for pain and terminal illness will effectively undermine the commitment to care that all physicians must have.

“In these trying economic times, will those who are ill or disabled feel a subtle pressure to save the system from the burden of caring for them?” Douma asks. “There is no assurance that ‘safeguards’ will eradicate abuse by physicians. We need to err on the side of life and never take the chance of granting a privileged few the power to take it.”

For more information on the issue contact us at 604-853-3425 or visit our web-site at www.thesignalhill.com.

Natalie Hudson
Director of Education and Outreach
Signal Hill
#112 -- 32868 Ventura Avenue
Abbotsford, BC V2S 6J3

[The following is an excerpt from an article by Margaret Dore that was published on the website of the Washington State Bar Association.. Margaret Dore is a lawyer in Washington State.]

July 2009

Death with Dignity

What Do We Tell Our Clients?

. . . .

by Margaret Dore

A client wants to know about the new Death with Dignity Act, which legalizes physician-assisted suicide in Washington state. Do you take the politically correct path and agree that it's the best thing since sliced bread? Or, do you do your job as a lawyer and tell him that the Act has problems and that he may want to take steps to protect himself? I would hope the latter.

Not What the Voters Were Promised

The new Act was passed by the voters as Initiative 1000 and has now been codified as Chapter 70.245 RCW. During the election, proponents touted it as providing "choice" for end-of-life decisions. A glossy brochure declared: "Only the patient — and no one else — may administer the [lethal dose]."[1]

The Act, however, doesn't say this anywhere. The Act also contains potentially coercive provisions. For example, it allows an heir who will benefit from the patient's death to help the patient sign up for the lethal dose.

How the Act Works

The Act has an application process to obtain the lethal dose, which includes a written request form with two required witnesses.[2] The Act allows one of these witnesses to be the patient's heir.[3] Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight.[4] The death is not required to be witnessed by disinterested persons.[5] Indeed, no one is required to be present.[6]

A Comparison to Probate Law

When signing a will, having an heir act as one of the witnesses creates a presumption of undue influence. The probate statute states that when one of two required witnesses is a taker under the will, there is a rebuttable presumption that the taker/witness: "…procured the gift by duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence." RCW 11.12.160(2). The Act's lethal dose request process, which allows an heir to be a witness on the lethal dose request form, does not promote patient choice. It invites coercion.

No Mental Standard or Consent Is Required at the Time of Administration

Under the Act, an "attending physician" and a "consulting physician" are required to determine whether the patient is competent at the time of the lethal dose request.[7] The Act does not, however, require that the patient be competent or even aware when the lethal dose is administered.[8] There is also no language requiring the client's consent at the time of administration.[9] Without a requirement of competency, consent, or even awareness when the lethal dose is administered, the stage is set for undue influence and worse.

"Self-administer" Does Not Necessarily Mean that a Patient Administers the Lethal Dose to Himself

The Act does not state that "only" the patient may administer the lethal dose.[10] The Act instead provides that the patient "self-administer" the dose.[11] In an Orwellian twist, the term "self-administer" does not mean that administration will necessarily be by the patient. "Self-administer" is instead defined as the act of ingesting. The Act states:

"Self-administer" means a qualified patient's act of ingesting medication to end his or her life . . . . (Emphasis added). RCW 70.245.010(12).

In other words, someone else putting the lethal dose in the patient's mouth qualifies as "self-administration."[12] Someone else putting the lethal dose in a feeding tube or IV nutrition bag would also qualify.[13] "Self-administer" means that someone else can administer the lethal dose to the patient.

In summary, someone other than the patient is allowed to administer the lethal dose. The Act contains no requirement that the patient be competent or even aware when the lethal dose is administered. There is no requirement that the patient consent when the lethal dose is administered.

Intentionally killing an incompetent person, or intentionally killing some other person without his consent, is homicide.[14] The Act, however, allows this result, as long as the action taken is according to the Act. The Act states:

Actions taken in accordance with this chapter do not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing, or homicide, under the law. (Emphasis added). RCW 70.245.180(1).

The Right to Rescind Is Not a Substitute for Requiring Consent

The Act's proponents may counter that consent is actually required because patients have a right to rescind a request for the lethal dose "at any time."[15] A right to rescind is not the same thing as a right to consent when the lethal dose is administered. Consider, for example, an incompetent or unaware patient who obtained the lethal dose on a "just-in-case basis" and has not consented to taking it. He would not have the ability to rescind because he is incompetent, sedated, or simply sleeping. Without the right to consent, someone else would, nonetheless, be free to administer the lethal dose to him. Without the right to consent, the client's control over the "time, place, and manner" of his death is an illusion.

No Witnesses at the Death

If, for the purpose of argument, the Act does not "allow" a patient's death without consent, patients are, nonetheless, unprotected from this result, due to the lack of required witnesses at the death. Without witnesses, the opportunity is created for someone other than the patient to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent. Even if he struggled, who would know? The lethal dose request would provide the alibi. This scenario would seem especially significant for patients with money. A California case, People v. Stuart, 67 Cal Rptr. 3rd 129, 143 (2007), states: "Financial reasons [are] an all too common motivation for killing someone…."

. . . .

What to Tell Clients

1. Signing the form will lead to a loss of control
By signing the lethal dose request form, the client is taking an official position that if he dies suddenly, no questions should be asked. The client will be unprotected against others in the event he changes his mind after the lethal prescription is filled and decides that he wants to live. This would seem especially important for patients with money. There is, regardless, a loss of control.

2. Prognoses can be wrong
The Act applies to adults determined by an "attending physician" and a "consulting physician" to have a disease expected to produce death within six months.[22] But what if the doctors are wrong? This is the point of a recent Seattle Weekly article: Even patients with cancer can live years beyond expectations.[23] The article states:

Since the day [the patient] was given two to four months to live, [she] has gone with her children on a series of vacations . . . . "We almost lost her because she was having too much fun, not from cancer" [her son chuckles].[24]

Conclusion

As lawyers, we often advise our clients of worst-case scenarios. This is our obligation, regardless of whether it is politically correct to do so. The Death with Dignity Act is not about dignity or choice. It is about enabling people to pressure others to an early death or even cause it. The Act may also encourage patients with years to live to give up hope. We should advise our clients accordingly.

Margaret Dore is an attorney admitted to practice in 1986. Her practice has included probate, guardianship, and appeals. She is the immediate past chair of the Elder Law Committee of the ABA Family Law Section. She is a former chair of what is now the King County Bar Guardianship and Elder Law Section. She is also a former law clerk to both the Washington State Supreme Court and the Washington State Court of Appeals. For more information on Ms. Dore, see www.margaretdore.com.

NOTES
1. I-1000 Pamphlet, "Paid for by Yes! on 1000."
2. RCW §§ 70.245.030 and .220 state that one of two required witnesses to the lethal dose request form cannot be the patient's heir or other person who will benefit from the patient's death; the other witness may be an heir or other person who will benefit from the death.
3. Id.
4. See Entire Act, Chapter 70.245 RCW.
5. Id.
6. Id.
7. RCW 70.245.040(1)(a) and RCW 70.245.050.
8. The following Act provisions address the issue of competency in conjunction with the lethal dose request, not later. See: RCW 70.245.010(3); RCW 70.245.010(5); RCW 70.245.010(11); RCW 70.245.020; RCW 70.245.030(1); RCW 70.245.040(1)(a); RCW 70.245.040(1)(d); RCW 70.245.050; RCW 70.245.120(3) & (4); and RCW 70.245.220 (regarding the patient's appearing to be of "sound mind"). There is no provision that requires the patient to be competent or even aware at the time of administration. See Entire Act, Chapter 70.245 RCW.
9. The following provisions require that a determination of whether a patient is acting "voluntarily" be made in conjunction with the lethal dose request, not later. See RCW 70.245.020(1); RCW 70.245.030(1); RCW 70.245.040(1)(a); RCW 70.245.040(1)(d); RCW 70.245.050; RCW 70.245.120(3) and (4); and RCW 70.245.220. There is no provision that requires the patient to be acting voluntarily and/or give consent at the time of administration. See Entire Act, Chapter 70.245 RCW ("consent" not mentioned).
10. See Entire Act, Chapter 70.245 RCW.
11. See RCW 70.245.010(7); RCW 70.245.010(12); RCW 70.245.020(1); RCW 70.245.090; RCW 70.245.140; RCW 70.245.170; RCW 70.245.180(1); and RCW 70.245.220.
12. Webster's New World College Dictionary at www.yourdictionary.com/ingest defines "ingest" as: "to take (food, drugs, etc.) into the body, as by swallowing, inhaling or absorbing." Someone putting the lethal dose in the patient's mouth qualifies as "self-administration" because the patient will thereby "ingest" the dose.
13. Someone putting the lethal dose in a feeding tube or IV nutrition bag qualifies as "self-administration" because the patient will thereby "ingest" the dose.
14. Cf. RCW 9A.32.010 (defining "homicide"); RCW 9A.32.020 (regarding premeditation); and RCW 9A.32.030 (defining "murder").
15. RCW 70.245.100.
. . . ..
22. RCW 70.245.040(1)(a); RCW 70.245.050; and RCW 70.245.010(13).
23. Shapiro, Nina, "Terminal Uncertainty — Washington's new 'Death with Dignity' law allows doctors to help people commit suicide — once they've determined that the patient has only six months to live. But what if they're wrong?" Seattle Weekly, January 14, 2009, www.seattleweekly.com/2009-01-14/news/terminal-uncertainty.
24. Id.

Click here to read the whole of the article immediately above on the website of the Washington State Bar Association.

Canadian Doctors Do Not Have the Right to Remove Life-Sustaining Treatment against the Wishes of the Patient

By Alex Schadenberg, President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

WINNIPEG, June 10, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Jocelyn Downie, the Canada Research Chair of Health Law and Policy said at an End-of-Life Ethics & Decision-Making conference at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg yesterday that doctors do not have the legal right to withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment against a patient's wishes.

Downie, who is Canada's foremost player in interpreting health law issues, stated that there is no legal precedent in Canada that gives doctors the authority to remove a feeding tube or issue a do-not-resuscitate order against a patient's wishes.

Downie directly contradicted a notice from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba, who asserted in their February 1, 2008 policy statement that a physician could unilaterally decide to remove life-sustaining treatment, including fluids and food, in certain circumstances.

The statement said that even when a patient is likely to regain a level of self-awareness, the physician could still withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment if the doctor obtains agreement from at least one other physician. The doctor also must seek agreement with the family, but if agreement cannot be achieved, the doctor must give a 96-hour notice before removing life-sustaining treatment, including fluids and food.

Downie said that the guidelines need to be revised because they go too far. Doctors can't medically determine whether a life is worth living. "I think it's taking too much authority for physicians and I don't think it's legally acceptable or ethical," stated Downie.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons stated in turn that Manitoba courts have recognized a doctor's power to pull the plug on a patient without the consent of the patient or their family. The college's registrar said: "Basically, we disagree with her."

The comments made by Downie may also affect the case of Samuel Golubchuk, an orthodox Jewish man, whose family is seeking to have his life-sustaining treatment continued while Grace Hospital in Winnipeg is seeking to withdraw it.

Jocelyn Downie is also one of Canada's leading proponents of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

RCMP Opens Investigation into Nova Scotia Woman’s Assisted Suicide

By Hilary White

HALIFAX, June 27, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – At the request of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, RCMP in Halifax are investigating the death of a Nova Scotia woman at the infamous euthanasia ‘clinic’ in Switzerland, called “Dignitas.” Depending on the outcome of the investigation, charges of aiding or counselling to commit suicide may be laid against the woman’s husband, . . . , who was with her when she died of an overdose of barbiturates in the Zurich facility.

Elizabeth Jeanette MacDonald of Windsor, 38, who died June 8, suffered from severe multiple sclerosis and was confined to a wheelchair. MacDonald told the Halifax Chronicle Herald in an interview that she had attempted suicide a year ago.

In a public statement, RCMP said, “On or about the 8th of June 2007 Elizabeth MacDonald a terminally ill patient from Windsor N.S. was euthanized at a clinic in Zurich, Switzerland which is legal to do in that country. Southwest Nova Major Crime will conduct an investigation to determine if there are any grounds for an offence to have been committed in this country.”

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition asked the RCMP to investigate last week after her obituary appeared in the local paper, in which the family thanked the operators of the assisted suicide facility. “Last, but not least, we would like to thank Herr Ludwig Minelli, and the members of Dignitas in Zurich (Bernard and ‘Gaby’, in particular), for helping Elizabeth deliver herself from the burden of a life which had become too great to bear,” the obituary ran.

Coalition executive director, Alex Schadenberg, told LifeSiteNews.com that their concern is simple: Was Elizabeth MacDonald counselled in this country to commit suicide?

“In Canada, it is against the law to aid and abet suicide,” said Schadenberg. “Who says she wasn’t aided or counselled to commit suicide? I have no idea whether [the family] have broken the law. Our argument is simple and to the point. These laws exist to protect vulnerable people; that’s what the law on assisted suicide is about.”

[Her husband] told the Halifax Herald that he has done nothing illegal. “She asked me to accompany her. It was the last loving thing I could do for her.” He called the coalition “a bunch of busybodies.”

“We just believe due process should happen,” Schadenberg said. “Without this process, whatever the outcome of this case, vulnerable disabled people are at risk of a no-holds barred situation where they are not adequately protected under the law.”

Draft policy would give Manitoba docs power to stop treatment

The body overseeing Manitoba's doctors is considering giving physicians the authority to stop or withhold medical treatment, even if the patient or family disagrees.

CBC News has obtained a draft document from Manitoba's College of Physicians and Surgeons that sets out proposed policies surrounding end-of-life decisions in hospitals.

The draft policy spells out the process that doctors must follow when deciding whether to withhold or withdraw respirators, breathing tubes and feeding tubes, or continue with treatments like dialysis.

It concludes doctors have the authority to make the final decision concerning treatments, but would give families 96 hours notice of the decision and the right to appeal it through a second opinion or court intervention.

College registrar Dr. Bill Pope said physicians make these kinds of decisions every day.

"This actually puts some boundaries around the ability of physicians to, as you put it, play God," said Pope.

"The fact remains that these decisions are being made all the time, so this gives some direction to them and to patients as to how they may access assistance."

Some patient advocates across the country are worried the proposed policy could set a precedent that other provinces will eventually follow.

Jocelyn Downie, a law and medicine professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, says the final decision should rest with patients and their families.

"At stake is decision-making at the end of life. Deciding when we should stop treating and recognizing the decision doesn't belong to physicians," said Downie.

People with disabilities say the draft policy goes beyond end-of-life care to include patients who are conscious and can speak for themselves.

Jim Derksen, who has had polio since he was a child, uses a respirator at night.

"I have friends who use respirators, who have had feeding tubes for decades. That a document would give a doctor the power to withdraw the respirator or the feeding tube, this is a concern to people who are aware of how fragile life is and who depend on these kinds of systems."

The daughter of a Vancouver man says she's concerned the Manitoba proposal will cause doctors to make patient-care decisions too quickly.

Last year, 62-year-old Harvbhajian Bath had a heart attack. Within 12 hours, doctors said he was brain dead and recommended he not be given life support.

The family called a lawyer and eventually, Bath rallied to the point that he was sent home.

His daughter, Ruby Bhullar, said Bath still has serious brain damage, but that he shows emotions and hugs his grandson. Two weeks ago, he attended a family wedding.

"Maybe there could be someone like my dad that recovers somewhat or could recover fully if they had the time to do so," said Bhullar.

"That's what I would be afraid of, that those families aren't going to have the time to see that family member could have made some sort of recovery."

Princeton Professor Singer: And I repeat, I would kill Disabled Infants
He is consistent. States "there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby"

By John-Henry Westen

PRINCETON, September 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a question and answer article published in the UK's Independent today, controversial Princeton University Professor Peter Singer repeats his notorious stand on the killing of disabled newborns. Asked, "Would you kill a disabled baby?", Singer responded, "Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole."

People who oppose Singer's position have maintained that Singer is the logical extension of the culture of death and that society will eventually embrace his stance if there is no shift to the culture of life. Alex Scadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition commented to LifeSiteNews.com about Singer saying, "at least he's consistent." In fact, Singer himself uses the abortion debate to justify his murderous stance.

"Many people find this shocking," continued Singer, "yet they support a woman's right to have an abortion." Concluding his point, Singer said, "One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby."

Singer's position, similar to the culture of death, is that there is no inherent dignity in man, there is no sanctity of human life. Man deserves no special treatment since, Singer rejects that man was created in the image and likeness of God.

Asked about the choice between killing 10 cows or a human, Singer said he would kill the cows, but not because they were of less value, but because humans would mourn the death more. "I've written that it is much worse to kill a being who is aware of having a past and a future, and who plans for the future. Normal humans have such plans, but I don't think cows do. And normal humans have family and friends who will grieve their death in ways more vivid and longer-lasting than the way cows may care about other cows. (Although a cow certainly misses her calf for a long time, if the calf is taken from her. That's why there is a major ethical problem with dairy products.) If I really had to make such a decision, I'd kill the cows."

Schadenberg commented saying, "Once again Singer is making distinctions between human beings he would consider normal and those he would consider not normal, thus he is deciding who is a person and who is not. Non-persons are allowed to be killed." The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition leader concluded, "even though Singer does not like to be compared to the Nazi's especially since his parents died in the Holocaust, his philosophical position is identical to what the Nazi's proposed. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is primarily concerned for the lives of people with disabilities and other vulnerable persons."

UK Man Goes to European Court Asking that He not be Starved to Death in Hospital

By Gudrun Schultz

LANCASTER, England, May 3, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A 45-year-old man who fears his doctors may refuse him food and water has taken his case to the European Court of Human Rights, reported the BBC today.

Les Burke suffers from a brain illness, cerebella ataxia, which may result in his eventual paralysis. He faces a likely future of being unable to move or speak, but with full mental capacity.

Under General Medical Council guidelines, his doctors would be permitted to withdraw food and water from him once his condition deteriorates. Mr. Burke is trying to ensure that does not happen.

A British High Court ruling that would have prevented his doctors from withdrawing essential nutrition from him was overturned last year when the GMC appealed the ruling. Mr. Burke was refused the right to appeal to the Lords.

Mr. Burke’s lawyer, Muiris Lyons, told the BBC, “We were very surprised that the Lords said the case did not have a significant public interest.” Mr. Lyons said denying Mr. Burke food and water would be a denial of his human rights.

Health officials said the original ruling left too much room for patients to make further treatment demands, and the GMC said doctors would be in an impossible position if Mr. Burke wins his case.

A proposed amendment to a Mental Capacity Bill that would have prevented common removal of food and water from terminal patients was defeated in the UK parliament in December 2004.

The pro-life group LIFE warned at the time that the bill as it stood could “open the floodgates” for euthanasia, describing the bill as “[an] underhand attempt to licence euthanasia by omission – which would surely be the first step to licensing euthanasia by a direct action, i.e. by commission.”

European Court Refuses To Guarantee Ill British Man Won't Be Dehydrated to Death

By Hilary White

LANCASTER, August 9, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Leslie Burke, a 46 year-old Lancaster man suffering from a degenerative neurological disease, has no reason to fear that he will be dehydrated to death when his illness renders him unable to speak.

The court has rejected Burke's attempt to ensure that he will not be dehydrated or starved to death in the final stages of his ultimately fatal illness. This in spite of the growing number of instances of death by dehydration in Britain and abroad – most notably the dehydration death of Terri Schindler-Schiavo in 2005 – and the growth in influence in Britain of the euthanasia movement.

Burke had taken his fight all the way through the British court system, which ruled last year in favour of the General Medical Council (GMC). The GMC argued that it must reserve the right to dehydrate patients to death at a doctor’s discretion. Burke argued that GMC guidelines left too much latitude to individual doctors to decide when a patient’s life was no longer worth living.

The European court has ruled that there are adequate protections in British law against the premature removal of “artificial nutrition and hydration.”

Burke told the BBC, however, that he had no confidence in the assurances of the British public health system in which doctors regularly decide that continuing a person’s life is no longer in his “best interests”.

“I only hope that if I am lucky enough to be in hospital, that the doctors treating me will not believe at some stage that it will be in my best interests for ANH to be withdrawn,” Burke said.

Britain, with a number of European countries, classifies nutrition and hydration as “medical treatment” that can be withdrawn at a doctor or a patient’s request, when life no longer seems sustainable. Anti-euthanasia activists warn that this ethics policy, added to the pressure of increasingly cash-strapped socialized medical systems looking for ways to remove patients from beds, places the onus on vulnerable patients to prove that their lives should be sustained.

While Mr. Burke was fighting in the British courts for his right to life, a bioethics expert for the British Department of Health, Elizabeth Woodeson, filed a brief with the appeals court saying that Burke’s request of a guarantee undermines the authority of doctors to make the “clinical judgment,” according to the government-approved guidelines.

Woodeson said the government had established National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), a bioethics think tank, to create guidelines for cases such as Mr. Burke’s, based partly on economic considerations.

Woodeson, wrote, “An assessment is made of the cost of the treatment per additional year of life which it brings, and per quality adjusted life year (QALY)...which takes into consideration the quality of life of the patient during any additional time for which their life will be prolonged. The clinical and cost effectiveness of the treatment under review is then used as the basis for a recommendation as to whether or not...the treatment should be provided in the NHS.”

The government’s conclusion was that it should be free to follow the NICE guidelines, “without being obliged to accede to patient demands...If that principle were undermined, there would be considerable risk of inefficient use of NHS resources.”

The head of Canada’s Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Alex Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.com that the European court “erred significantly,” and that with this decision, patients all over Europe are at risk.

“Leslie burke was fighting not only for himself, but for others. He was trying to set a precedent that if you did not want to die that you had the right to make sure of that,” Schadenberg said.

Schadenberg said that it is the longstanding custom in medicine that doctors can withhold treatment that they consider futile or burdensome and that there does come a point when a patient who is very close to death can no longer assimilate food or water.

The problem now is that doctors are no longer required to limit that judgement to purely medical considerations. “Modern bioethics philosophy has rejected the concept of purely medical futility. The treatment is not considered futile; the patient is considered futile,” Schadenberg said.

Says federal law regulates illicit drug dealing and trafficking, not "medicine." [Excerpt from article by Ted Olsen | posted 01/17/2006 on Christianity Today website]

The United States attorney general overstepped his bounds when he tried to stop the state of Oregon from implementing its 1997 physician-assisted suicide bill, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a 6-3 decision.

In 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a directive "that assisting suicide is not a 'legitimate medical purpose' … and that prescribing, dispensing, or administering federally controlled substances to assist suicide violates the CSA [Controlled Substances Act]."

Using such drugs to assist with suicide could lead to "suspension or revocation" of a doctor's medical license, Ashcroft wrote.

Writing for the majority, Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the Controlled Substances Act did not give Ashcroft "such broad and unusual authority." The attorney general, the Court said, has no expertise in medical matters.

"The statute and our case law amply support the conclusion that Congress regulates medical practice insofar as it bars doctors from using their prescription-writing powers as a means to engage in illicit drug dealing and trafficking as conventionally understood," Kennedy wrote. "Beyond this, however, the statute manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally."

In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the CSA's "legitimate medical purpose" clause is not limited to the regulation of illicit drugs.

"If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death," Scalia wrote.

Scalia was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts, for whom this was his first dissent. ....

Physician-Assisted Suicide Opponents Marshal Arguments
From an article by Deboral Gyapong, Canadian Catholic News, Ottawa, Western Catholic Reporter,
last updated Oct. 26, 2005

In advance of the Oct. 31 House of Commons debate on assisted suicide, opponents are searching for the best strategies to defend the rights of the disabled and the elderly.

Politicians had some help from disabled rights activist Mark Pickup, who told an Oct. 25 Parliament Hill luncheon gathering any attempt to legalize euthanasia represents blatant discrimination against disabled people.

Pickup, who lives with multiple sclerosis, said nobody would consider allowing able-bodied people to seek assisted suicide.

In fact society would advocate hospitalizing them until the crisis is past, he said.

"Only when we talk about disability, do we talk about the right for self-determination," he told about 30 MPs, staffers and advocates.

Pickup said Bloc Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde's Private Members' Bill C-407 would give people "the right to kill the sick and depressed with impunity."

Sponsored by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC), the luncheon drew about a dozen MPs, mostly from the Conservative Party of Canada, Hill staffers and representatives from pro-life organizations. [More of this article in the Western Catholic Reporter online]

A Letter Opposing Assisted Suicide to Send to All Members of the House of Commons of the Canadian Parliament

[The letter that follows is written in such a way that it is suitable for sending to members of parliament who either oppose or support assisted suicide. ]

Dear Members of Parliament:

In view of proposals to legalize assisted suicide, I am writing to you to urge you to vote against any bill that may be forthcoming to make so-called "mercy-killing" legal.

The proposal to legalize assisted suicide poses a danger to the disabled, to the elderly, and ultimately to all Canadians. It should be noted that in the Netherlands the toleration of assisted suicide has resulted in the deaths of many, even without their consent. Any law to legalize this practice in Canada can be expected to create a slippery slope in this country similar to the situation in the Netherlands.

I would appreciate a reply to this letter stating your position on proposals to legalize assisted suicide.

________________ [name of person sending the letter]

[address of person sending the letter]

'Historic' change as opposition to euthanasia ends
(Filed: 01/07/2005)

Long-standing opposition among doctors to euthanasia was effectively dropped by the BMA yesterday.

Doctors voted at their conference to change the association's policy and adopt a neutral position, which means, in practice, that they will neither campaign for nor against any future change in the law. [More]

Excerpt from an article by Licia Corbella in

The big lie about euthanasia
Legalizing the right to kill in the name of mercy threatens our children's lives

. . . . Canada's Justice Minister Irwin Cotler mused last week that he won't support Bill C-407, the private member's bill of Bloc Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde, because it is too broad and didn't have enough controls.

Unfortunately however, he still believes Canada should look at legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

But the reports out of Holland prove that despite strict controls, many innocent people are killed against their will at the whim of their doctor.

The first of these reports that prove this was called "Medical Decisions About the End of Life," also known as The Remmelink Report -- named after Prof. Jan Remmelink, attorney general of the High Council of the Netherlands, who led the study committee.

In other words, an average of three people a day were actively killed by their doctors without the patient's consent or knowledge.

n and in 8% of the cases, doctors performed "involuntary euthanasia," even though they believed other options were still possible.

In 1990, there were 128,824 deaths in Holland. According to the Remmelink Report, 2.9% of those deaths were caused intentionally by doctors and fully 0.8% of people who died were killed without the patient's request.

This was all done prior to euthanasia being legal in Holland and not one doctor was sent to jail for killing their patients without their consent.

So-called right-to-die advocates often claim euthanasia is an issue of "choice."

But the experience in the Netherlands shows that when voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide are accepted practice, an alarming number of people end up having no choice at all -- ever again.

Just in case you're thinking 1990 was an anomaly, another extensive and similar report was conducted in Holland in 1995. Of the 135,676 people who died in Holland that year, 0.7%, or 950 people, were killed without the patient's request.

A slight improvement by one-tenth of a percent, but still totally and utterly unacceptable.

Dr. Margaret Somerville, founding director of McGill University's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, who is both a professor of law and a professor in the faculty of medicine, points out that at first euthanasia in Holland was restricted to people in terrible pain. No more.

"In the Netherlands, euthanasia was initially allowed to be performed on only those suffering from unbearable, intractable pain and the terminally ill. The patient had to be adult and competent at the time of euthanasia. Now none of those conditions any longer apply," said Somerville, from her office in Montreal.

Just this past Sept. 29, the Dutch government announced it would establish guidelines for when it is acceptable to kill infants who are born less than perfect -- including babies born with spina bifida, cerebral palsy and Down's Syndrome.

[To read the whole article in The Calgary Sun online, click here.]

Excerpt from an article by Mark Pickup in Western Catholic Reporter, Week of October 10, 2005:

Only God grants death with dignity

Proposed euthanasia law gives licence to kill

Bill C-407 is officially dubbed "An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity.)" It is a dangerous bill. It is not an act for the right to die with dignity; it is an act for the right to kill the sick and depressed with impunity. The bill proposes to:

Echlin said Bill C-407 — a private member’s bill tabled late last month by Bloc Québécois MP Francine Lalonde — should be met by a strong lobby effort to stop it.

Leslie Burke wants to live; the National Health Service has a second opinion.
By: Wesley J. Smith
The Weekly Standard
May 30, 2005

Original Article

London
THE MOST IMPORTANT BIOETHICS LITIGATION in the world today involves a 45-year-old Englishman, Leslie Burke. He isn't asking for very much. Burke has a progressive neurological disease that may one day deprive him of the ability to swallow. If that happens, Burke wants to receive food and water through a tube. Knowing that Britain's National Health Service (NHS) rations care, Burke sued to ensure that he will not be forced to endure death by dehydration against his wishes.

Burke's lawsuit is even more important to the future of medical ethics than was the Terri Schiavo case. Schiavo was dehydrated to death--a bitter and profound injustice--because Judge George W. Greer ruled both that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and (based on statements she allegedly made during casual conversations some 20 years ago) that she would not want to live under such circumstances. In other words, Terri Schiavo lost her life in order to safeguard her personal autonomy, though she never made the actual decision to die.

But Burke, who is fully competent, worries that his wishes will be ignored precisely because he wants food and water even if he becomes totally paralyzed. Receiving food and water when it is wanted certainly seems the least each of us should be able to expect. But, it turns out, whether Burke lives or dies by dehydration may not be up to him. According to National Health Service treatment guidelines, doctors, rather than patients or their families, have the final say about providing or withholding care. [Read the whole article on the "Centre for Science and Culture" Website.

Action in Wake of Terri's Death Saves Grandmother From Starvation and Dehydration Death

LaGrange, GA., April 11, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A repeat of the Terri Shiavo death was averted on Friday when Mae Magouirk, an 81 year old Georgia widow who had undergone 10 days of being deprived of food and hydration, was airlifted to the University of Alabama-Birmingham Medical Center where, according to her nephew, she is receiving food, fluids, cardiac care and neurological help.

Magouirk, who was not terminally-ill, comatose, nor in a persistent vegetative state, was a patient at Hospice-LaGrange in Georgia. Her guardian, 36 year old granddaughter, Elizabeth ("Beth") Gaddy of Hoganville, Ga., had requested that the hospice begin withholding food and water from the patient. When WorldNetDaily (WND) first broke this story it quoted Ms. Gaddy, an elementary school teacher and holder of Magouirk's power of attorney who had been taking care of her grandmother for 10 years, as saying "Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus, … She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?"

Ms. Gaddy's decision, which was in direct contravention of Mae Magouirk's living will, greatly disturbed Magourik's nephew, Ken Mullinax, prompting him to contact WND with the story. The subsequent response by readers saved his aunt's life and in gratitude Mr. Mullinax called WND and stated:

"Because of your articles and all of the friends of Terri, my Aunt Mae Magouirk is now in the University of Alabama-Birmingham Medical Center and is receiving food, fluids, cardiac care and neurological help. We are overjoyed.

Praise be the name of the Lord, praise be all of the friends of Terri Schindler [Schiavo]. We could never have mobilized public sentiment and pressure on these people in LaGrange, Ga. - at Hospice, the LaGrange, Ga., doctors or the probate judge - unless the friends of Terri and the wonderful media of WorldNetDaily.com had become involved. Thank you all."

Reminiscent of the family struggle that surrounded the Terri Shiavo case there were legal struggles between Magouirk's grand-daughter and her sister Lonnie Ruth Mullinax, 74, of Birmingham, and her brother, A.B. McLeod, 64, of Anniston, Ala.. Mae's siblings protested and attempted to have their sister removed from the hospice and transported to UAB Medical Center for treatment. However. Ms. Gaddy and her brother, Michael Shane Magouirk obtained an emergency injunction from Troup County Probate Judge Donald Boyd to prevent the planned air transport.

Florida Governor Bush Appeals Schiavo Case to US Supreme Court

CLEARWATER, October 25, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Florida Governor Jeb Bush is appealing a Florida Supreme Court decision to overturn the Florida electorate-created Terri's Law.

The Florida high court ruled last month that the Florida legislature overstepped its authority by creating the Law, enacted last year to halt brain-damaged Terri Schiavo's euthanasia by her estranged husband, Michael. At the same time, Terri's parents are appealing a separate ruling by a local court, to examine Terri Schiavo's true wishes to be kept alive in her current condition.

"This case is not only about Terri Schiavo, but also about the role of the courts and the Legislature and the governor," attorney for Bush, Ken Connor, told The Tampa Tribune news. "Who is going to be the chief architect of policy in this state?" he said. "The largely unelected judiciary or the elected branches with the most accountability?"

Connor also asked local judge, George Greer, for a stay of the order allowing Michael Schiavo to remove Terri's feeding tube, which Michael Schiavo said he would do as early as Friday. Greer said the feeding tube must remain until December 6, allowing Terri's parents time to appeal a separate ruling made by Greer Friday, denying the Schindler's a new trial regarding their daughter's wishes.

Bob and Mary Schindler requested an appeal of Greer's order, to impart proof that -- assuming Michael Schiavo's charge that Terri said she would not want to be kept alive in the event of her disability was true -- Terri would have changed her mind about being kept alive if she had knowledge of Pope John Paul II's March address to an international congress on the subject.

See the related LifeSiteNews.com Special Report:
Commentary on the address by Pope John Paul II to the participants in the International Congress on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas"
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/040420b.html

See Friday's LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Schiavo's Life at Risk: Gov Bush Denied Appeal to Save Her
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/oct/04102206.html

tv

Terri Schiavo "Very Much Alive and Responsive" according to Schindler Attorneys

PINELLAS PARK, Florida, January 5, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Terri Schiavo, the now famous, brain-disabled daughter of Robert and Mary Schindler, is "very much alive and responsive," according to the attorneys of Schiavo's parents.

The Schindler's were allowed a rare visit Christmas Eve; they were accompanied by their new attorneys, David Gibbs III and Barbara Weller. Gibbs and Weller, of Gibbs Law Firm in Seminole, FL, took on the role of lead counsel for the Schindlers in September of 2004.

The Christmas Eve visit was the first time either of the attorneys had been able to see Terri since taking the case. They made the visit with Terri's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and members of her immediate family.

Counsel was able to personally verify the fact that Terri is not in a coma or even in a comatose state. She was purposefully interactive, curious and expressive with her parents during the entire 45-minute visit. Mrs. Weller wrote a moving narrative describing in detail her reactions and observations during this visit.

"When she heard their voices, and particularly her mother's voice, Terri instantly turned her head towards them and smiled," Weller said. "Terri established eye contact with her family, particularly with her mother, who spent the most time with her during our visit. It was obvious that she recognized the voices in the room with the exception of one."
Read Weller's narrative online.

British Medical Association "Preferred Bioethicist" Says Infanticide Justifiable

WESTMINSTER, UK, January 26, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - John Harris, the British Medical Association's "preferred bioethicist" and Manchester University professor of ethics revealed yesterday that he felt infanticide was justifiable for disabled children.

During an unreported debate last week on sex selection, Harris told the Commons Science and Technology Committee that he did not see a difference between killing a child at 40 weeks gestation versus killing the child after it was born. He also said that infanticide is accepted in most countries and that it was for families to decide the fate of their child. "I don't think infanticide is always unjustifiable. I don't think it is plausible to think that there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal," he said.

The comments sparked fury from Pro life groups. Spokeswoman for the UK ProLife Party, Julia Millington, who posed the question, said "It is frightening to think that university students are being educated by somebody who endorses the killing of new-born babies, and equally worrying to discover that such a person is the establishment's 'preferred' bioethicist. Prof. Harris is a member of the Human Genetics Commission, and has acted as ethical consultant to the Department of Health and to numerous international bodies. In such a climate is it any wonder that a baby has been aborted in the UK at seven months for a cleft palate?"

Reverend Joanna Jepson, curate of the Church of England, who is going to the High Court to try to block late abortions for trivial reasons such as a cleft palate, said "It is frightening to hear anyone endorsing infanticide but it is shocking when the person is responsible for teaching others."

Read local coverage at:
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=93982004

"SAN DIEGO Jan. 12 [2003] — An Australian doctor plans to build a new machine for people to kill themselves with carbon monoxide after his prototype was seized as he left his native country, he told a euthanasia conference Sunday." [See abcNews.com story.]

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Demands an Investigation into theProduction and Distribution of the Exit Bag-Homicide Bag in Canada.

A statement issued on July 10, 2002 by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. in the wake of the Evelyn Martyns case, reads in part:

"The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is disappointed with the lack of enforcement by Canadian legal authorities concerning the production and distribution of the Exit Bag - Homicide Bag by the Right to Die Society of Canada.

"The Exit Bag is a suicide/homicide bag that is made of heavy-duty plastic that has been designed for optimum effectiveness in killing persons who wear the bag. The Canadian made Exit Bag is distributed with an instruction booklet entitled: The Art & Science of Suicide

"The Exit Bag is not only tailor-made for committing suicide, but it is also a device that can be put over the head of an unsuspecting elderly person or person with a disability. The production and distribution of the Exit Bag directly threatens people with disabilities and other vulnerable Canadians who are pressured by their "care-givers" or killed without their consent because they are considered a burden.

"In August 2001, Wesley Smith, lawyer, consumer advocate, and author of the award winning book: Culture of Death, exposed Australia’s Doctor Death, Philip Nitschke, and his Voluntary Euthanasia Research Foundation for breaking Australian law by promoting the Canadian made Exit Bag. Australian law states that it is illegal to Counsel or Aid someone to commit suicide. Australian authorities acted by banning the import of the Exit Bag into Australia because it contravened their criminal code.

"Canada and Australia share the same laws concerning the counselling and aiding of suicide. Section 241 of the Criminal Code states: Every one who (a) counsels a person to commit suicide, or (b) aids or abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

"In September 2001, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition collected and disseminated information concerning the Right to Die Society of Canada’s involvement in producing and distributing the Exit Bag on a world-wide basis. We then sent all of our information to the RCMP with a formal letter requesting that an investigation be done into the production and distribution of the Exit Bag in Canada. No response was ever received.

"In October 2001, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition produced a 10 minute video concerning the Exit Bag that featured Wesley Smith, Richard Marchak, a Canadian attorney, and Adrian Dieleman, a disabled Canadian who had a friend who used an Exit Bag to commit suicide. After we had the video professionally produced and copied we sent copies (December 2001) to members of parliament, as well as the Solicitor General and the Department of Justice. Minimal response has been received.

"On January 15, 2002 we took part in a one hour call-in television show concerning the Exit Bag. The show featured Ruth von Fuchs from the Toronto chapter of the Right to Die Society of Canada; Hugh Scher, Constitutional lawyer and former chair of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities Human Rights Committee; and Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. Copies of this programme have been distributed throughout Canada.

"On that program Ruth von Fuchs clearly explains how and what the Exit Bag is used for and consequently reveals how her organization is disregarding Canadian law. Hugh Scher explained that the only reason the Right to Die Society is getting away with breaking the law is that those who use the Exit Bag do so quietly. Hugh Scher stated that: "These are criminal code offenses for good reason. Particularly they are there to protect the vulnerable, they are there to protect victims whose lives will be taken with or without consent."

"Statistics from the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention show that 95% of all people who attempt or commit suicide are experiencing severe depression. Depression is treatable.

"Last week, researchers in Oregon released a study that found that almost 90% of those who request assistance in suicide in Oregon, change their minds when they are provided the proper care. Dr. Susan Tolle, director of the Center for Ethics in Health Care stated that: "most seriously ill people who ask about doctor-assisted suicide are actually afraid of pain or other issues and need to be reassured. Doctors should ask ‘What are you afraid of? What are you worried about?’" They should then provide the necessary care.

"We are concerned that vulnerable and/or depressed Canadians who have been abandoned or who fear medical treatment or have not received the best medical care, may be counselled, pressured, aided or abetted by the Right to Die Society to commit suicide with assistance. The Right to Die Society has shown disregard for Canadian law and is politically motivated rather than compassionately based.

"The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will continue to support and direct people toward the compassionate care that they need."

Victoria Woman Faces Assisted Suicide Charge

from an article by Louise Dickson, Vancouver Sun, Saturday, June 29, 2002

VICTORIA -- A Greater Victoria woman has been charged with helping
64-year-old Monique Charest of Duncan commit suicide.

Evelyn Marie Martens, 71, has also been charged with counselling Charest, a
former nun, to commit suicide on Jan. 7.

Martens was arrested on the Patricia Bay Highway on Wednesday evening after
getting off the ferry from Vancouver. She appeared in Duncan provincial
court on Thursday and remains in custody.

Duncan RCMP Sergeant Derek Crawford said he could not release details of the investigation because a publication ban on the proceedings had been imposed in court.

Regional coroner Lisa Lapointe said her office had been investigating the
case along with the RCMP from the date of Charest's death. An autopsy had
been performed but Lapointe said she could not release the cause of death or
any finding while the criminal investigation was still under way.

Martens is to appear in Duncan provincial court again for a bail hearing on
July 2. Her sister said she did not want to speak about the case.

Counselling a person to commit suicide and aiding and abetting a person to
commit suicide are indictable offences. If found guilty, a person is liable
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

Martens' name is mentioned in a brief published on the Internet by John
Hofsess, founder of The Right to Die Society of Canada. The society was
formed in 1991 to give Canadians a practical means of changing the law to
permit choice in dying. . . . .

Supreme Court Denies Latimer Appeal

By SUE BAILEY-- Canadian Press
Tuesday, May 14, 2002

OTTAWA (CP) -- The country's highest court won't reopen the Robert Latimer
case.

The Supreme Court of Canada offered no reasons Tuesday as it dismissed an
application to rehear the emotionally charged case of the Saskatchewan
farmer who killed his disabled daughter in what he maintains was an act of
mercy.

Letters which Latimer sent the top court were treated as a motion to revisit
a verdict handed down in January 2001. Judgments are rarely reconsidered,
and usually only if a new issue has come to light.

Latimer, 48, entered prison almost 16 months ago after losing his court
fight for a lesser sentence in a ruling that still stirs powerful and
conflicting responses.

The high court said Latimer must serve the minimum, mandatory sentence for
second-degree murder -- life with no full parole for 10 years.

He can apply for day parole in six years.

Latimer held to the end that he killed 12-year-old Tracy with exhaust fumes
in 1993 to spare her further agony from surgery to ease severe cerebral
palsy.

Tracy's mental age was about three months and she could not walk, talk or
feed herself. Chronic pain from a dislocated hip and previous operations was
intense in her final months and death was "the best thing for Tracy," her
mother testified.

Latimer started writing to the top court last June about its decision to
deny his appeal. He wrote on at least three other occasions, including a
request for information on court processes.

The Supreme Court informed Latimer last February that his letters would be
treated as a motion for re-hearing the case.

Latimer has inspired campaigns both for his early release and in support of
the minimum, mandatory jail term.

To some, he is the victim of unjust minimum sentences that prohibit
compassion in special circumstances. To others, he is a murderer who must be
jailed to the extent of the law as a strong signal that society's weakest
will be protected.

After Latimer's 1997 conviction, the jury recommended one year in jail and
another year of house arrest on his farm near Wilkie, Sask.

The trial judge allowed the reduced sentence by giving Latimer a rare
constitutional exemption from life in prison without chance of parole for 10
years, as required by law.

To do otherwise would be "cruel and unusual" given the facts of the case, he
said.

But the trial judge was overruled by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. It
restored the mandatory minimum sentence and was later upheld by the top
court. n

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The material contained in the article immediately above was made
available courtesy contributors and editors of Pro-Life E-News. We reproduce the folllowing notice from Pro-Life News:

"Copying of this material is free for non-commercial
educational and research use. Unless explicitly stated,
copyright of this material is owned by the author
and/or sponsoring organization, and/or newswire services."

Thursday, May 2, 2002 Star Bulletin
"A bill to legalize assisted suicide in Hawaii failed . . . ." [article in Honolulu Star-Bulletin]

From Tuesday, 1 January, 2002, 09:36 GMT BBC News:
Netherlands Legalises "Mercy Killing"

". . . . The Netherlands has become the first country in the world to legalise euthanasia, giving terminally ill patients the right to end their lives.

"The new law means that doctors no longer face prosecution for carrying out mercy killings if they are performed with due care." [Read the BBC article.]

"Dutch medics back 'euthanasia' doctor"

"About 5,000 Dutch people are helped to die each year"
By Geraldine Coughlan at The Hague

"In the Netherlands a group of doctors have announced that they have set up
a fund to pay the legal costs of one of their colleagues who is appealing
against a murder conviction for assisting the death of a patient who had not
requested euthanasia.

"The case widens the debate on mercy killings in the Netherlands, which
became the first country in the world to legalize euthanasia on the 1
January.

"A Dutch court found Dr Wilfred van Ooijen guilty of murder last year but did
not sentence him.

"The doctor helped an 84-year-old woman to die in a Christian nursing home
in 1997."

"Legal criteria"

"The patient was terminally ill and in a coma, but had not requested
euthanasia - one of the conditions required for a doctor to end a patient's
life.

"Dr van Ooijen also failed to meet another requirement when he did not seek
a second medical opinion.

"The doctor's supporters claim the case is not about euthanasia but medical
ethics, and that doctors encounter similar situations regularly.

"An estimated 5,000 people die from euthanasia in the Netherlands each
year, but only half of these cases are reported. "

"Ongoing fears"

"Under the new law doctors can no longer be prosecuted if they perform
euthanasia with due care. The authorities hope this will encourage more
openness.

"But some doctors like Dr van Ooijen do not always adhere to the strict
medical guidelines, when they take the decision to help a patient with a
humane death.

"And some experts feel the cases of many mercy killings will continue to go
unreported, while doctors fear that they, like Dr van Ooijen, could end up
being labelled a murderer. . . . ." [BBC article]

Princeton University Professor Justifies Infanticide
--Associated Press Report

By Harry R. Weber, Associated Press, 10/5/2001

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) Bioethicist Peter Singer got a respectful reception
Friday as he told advocates for the disabled it is morally acceptable to kill
severely disabled newborns.

The Governor's Commission on Disability was harshly criticized for inviting
Singer to Friday's conference because of that stance, first enunciated in a
1979 book.

But only about 20 people protested outside, and few in the audience of
about 200 heeded requests from critics that they refrain from applauding
when Singer spoke.

Many of the protesters defended Singer's right to his views, but said it was
outrageous for a state agency to sponsor his visit.

''Singer has a right to say what he wants. That doesn't mean we have to give
him a forum,'' said Daniel Itse, a Republican state representative from
Fremont.

Singer acknowledged the controversy over his appearance and the
underlying issue of free speech by quoting Voltaire: ''I may not agree with
what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.''

The Princeton University professor then lived up to his reputation as a
provocative thinker and speaker.

''I do think that it is sometimes appropriate to kill a human infant,'' he said,
adding that he does not believe a newborn has a right to life until it reaches
some minimum level of consciousness.

''For me, the relevant question is, what makes it so seriously wrong to take
a life?'' Singer asked. ''Those of you who are not vegetarians are responsible
for taking a life every time you eat. Species is no more relevant than race in
making these judgments.'' [emphasis added by BCPTL website editor]

Singer said society condones other efforts by parents to influence their
future children's attributes. On some Ivy League campuses, ads in student
papers offer big money to entice female students to donate eggs.

''This is clearly the genetic supermarket at an early stage,'' he said.

If it is all right for people to try to breed children with high IQs and other
desirable characteristics, Singer asked, what is wrong with euthanizing
newborns who would suffer throughout their lives because of a severe
disability?

Before the speech, Itse held a sign saying, ''Singer's got the wrong tune.''

He said his 7-year-old son, Jarrod, was born with a severe brain injury, and
doctors gave him only a few weeks to live. But he said the boy has
persevered.

''Though he can't communicate, he grunts and groans and makes himself
known and, remarkably, he's quite effective at it,'' Itse said.

Another protester, Tom Cagle, 50, of Henniker, wore a T-shirt with the name
of a disability rights group, ''Not Dead Yet.''

''Peter Singer is absolutely notorious for misquoting disabled people,'' said
Cagle, who has multiple sclerosis. ''He's a bad scientist because he's not
consistent.''

Commission Director Michael Jenkins said his group abhors Singer's
positions, but wanted him as a speaker to prompt debate on important
issues. When the Executive Council, an elected body that reviews
contracts, refused to approve Singer's $2,000 fee, Singer agreed to speak
without payment.

Republican gubernatorial hopeful Gordon Humphrey, who arrived after Singer
entered the conference, criticized Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen for not
rescinding Singer's invitation.

''It's an outrage she let in this cruel crackpot who advocates killing infants,''
Humphrey said.

''No civilized government in America should give him an honored place to
speak.''

Shaheen's spokeswoman Pamela Walsh said the governor doesn't support
Singer's views, but believes he had a right to express them. She said the
commission wanted a chance to confront Singer.

''I have no idea why Gordon Humphrey is making this an issue,'' Walsh said.

Humphrey lost to Shaheen last year but is expected to run again next year.
His vote against the Americans with Disabilities Act when he was a U.S.
senator in 1990 became an issue in last year's campaign.

Other speakers at the conference said Singer's views are a sign that the
struggle for equal rights for the disabled is far from over, especially in the
workplace.

''I do know that I don't want others judging me by my genetic predisposition,
and I don't want others to have access to that information,'' said Paul Steven
Miller, a lawyer with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Miller, who has a form of dwarfism, added, ''No employer should ever review
your genetic records along with your resume.''

On the Net:

Not Dead Yet: http://www.notdeadyet.org

Governor's Commission on Disability: http://webster.state.nh.us/disability

Princeton's Center for Human Values: http://www.princeton.edu/(tilde)uchv

*************************
We are indebted to Pro-Life E-News for the immediately foregoing article. We repeat below the statement from that list-serve:

'The material contained in this file is made
available courtesy contributors and editors of
Pro-Life E-News.

"Copying of this material is free for non-commercial
educational and research use. Unless explicitly stated,
copyright of this material is owned by the author
and/or sponsoring organization, and/or newswire services."

PRI Weekly Briefing 16 October 2001 Vol. 3/ No. 26

Professor Claims Robert Latimer Started a Trend.

A University of Alberta psychologist says that Robert Latimer's killing of his daughter started a trend. After the start of his trial, "altruistic filicide" rose 54%. Lawyers who defended Latimer expressed skepticism regarding the professor's conclusions [See April 3, 2002, article in the National Post Online.]

"Eloquent Defense of Life
Delivered in Parliamentary Euthanasia Debate"

OTTAWA, October 30, 2001 (LSN.ca) - In a debate in the House of Commons
Friday, Canadian Alliance MP Jason Kenney made a spirited defense of the
right to life in remarks against euthanasia. Kenney spoke to a private
members bill on the issue of lenient penalties for those who claim to
murder the disabled out of misguided sympathy.

The bill was presented by NDP MP Wendy Lill, with Kenney, Grant McNally and
Karen Kraft Sloan speaking in favour of the motion. The official
government response delivered by Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to the
Solicitor General of Canada), obfuscated by talking around the motion
rather than addressing it. She outlined the history and nature of the Royal
Prerogative of Mercy, which the bill asks not be given to those who kill the
disabled out of supposed "mercy".

Kenney said, "we cannot and must not make distinctions between human
persons and their right to life." He called the "sanctity of human life,"
the "first principle" of "our entire legal structure, legal system and, I
would suggest, western civilization." Thus "to take the life of
individuals because of the circumstances of their life, be it their
ethnicity, religion, age, social or economic condition or their physical
and mental condition is to violate the very first premise upon which a
society founded on the rule of law exists," he said.

Kenney interpreted the preamble to the Constitution "Whereas Canada is
founded upon principles which recognize the supremacy of God and the rule
of law" to mean that "the rights which we possess, the rights of which the
charter speaks, are not rights granted by the state, by a legislature or by
a court, nor are they rights that can be abrogated by any of those
institutions. Rather, these are rights that are inherent and inalienable in
the human person. No man, no parliament, no father, even a father in great
emotional turmoil and confusion, has the right to suspend and to violate
the inalienable dignity of the human person."

He reminded the House that a "horrific example" of a state which "made a
qualitative distinction between different human beings based on arbitrary
criteria" was the Nazi system. He recalled that the "Nazi movement started
its reign of terror and death, not with the execution of Jews in the
Holocaust but rather with the eugenics program which sought to eliminate
those who were deemed imperfect because of some condition of life, such as
being mentally or physically disabled."

"Dutch Doctor Convicted in Euthanasia Test Case"

(By Jana Sanchez, Yahoo News, December 7, 2001)

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - A Dutch doctor was convicted on Thursday of
assisting suicide in a test case that sought to define the limits of
euthanasia in the Netherlands, the first country to make it legal.

An appeals court in Amsterdam found physician Philip Sutorius guilty but
did not give him a jail sentence, court spokeswoman Liesbeth Dubois told
Reuters.

Euthanasia supporters criticised the verdict, saying it too narrowly defined
the medical justification for euthanasia, and hoped the doctor would appeal
to the country's highest court.

Sutorius aided former Senator Edward Brongersma in taking his life in 1998.
Brongersma was suffering from incontinence, dizziness and immobility and
said he was tired of life.

``The reason he was found guilty was because he did not act for medical
reasons, but rather because the patient was tired of life,'' Dubois said.

``But the court did not sentence him because he acted out of compassion
for his patient and because the court viewed this as a test case by the
prosecutor,'' she added.

The prosecution hopes to use the case to define the limits of euthanasia,
she said. The prosecution had appealed against an earlier judgment from a
Haarlem court which acquitted Sutorius. That court found the doctor had
fulfilled all the criteria for assisting Brongersma in ending his life.

Although the assisted suicide happened before the law was enacted, the
court considered the current law in its judgment, Dubois said.

UNBEARABLE SUFFERING

Under the new law, passed in April, doctors can still be prosecuted if they
fail to follow strict rules which insist that adult patients must make a
voluntary, well-considered and lasting request to die.

Patients must face a future of unbearable suffering and there must be no
reasonable alternative in order to be allowed to die. A second doctor must
be consulted and the assisted suicide must be carried out in a medically
appropriate way.

Supporters of euthanasia said the ruling was wrong.

``Mr Brongersma's death was according to the law now and in 1998,'' said
Rob Jonquiere, managing director of the Dutch Voluntary Euthanasia
Association (NVVE).

``He didn't have a real illness like cancer, but he was tired of life and he had
minor physical problems. He suffered from his situation,'' said Jonquiere.
Sutorius is now deciding whether to appeal to the nation's highest court,
Jonquiere said.

``We hope he will appeal, but it costs a lot emotionally.''

The Dutch Medical Federation (KNMG), which represents 33,000 Dutch
physicians, said that although it found the court's judgment a little harsh, it
did not think the doctor's actions were within the bounds of the current law.

``We think it was beyond the bounds of the current law. There was no
unbearable physical or psychiatric suffering. We don't think being fed up
with life is a reason for euthanasia,'' Paul de Vries, spokesman for the
KNMG told Reuters. [source]

[A] . . . study found that in 1995 almost two thirds of cases of euthanasia and physicial-assisted suicide went unreported." [from BBC News Online: background briefings, Nov., 2000]

Euthanasia and Related Issues

. . .Euthanasia Bill Defeated in Canada 228 - 59

Martin Amis calls for euthanasia booths on street corners

Euthanasia bill passes first step

Quebec physicians tentatively propose legal euthanasia

July 2009

Death with Dignity

Doctors: let us kill disabled babies
[from The Sunday Times online

Draft policy would give Manitoba docs power to stop treatment

The big lie about euthanasia
Legalizing the right to kill in the name of mercy threatens our children's lives

Only God grants death with dignity

Proposed euthanasia law gives licence to kill

Legal options to prolong Schiavo's life fade

Victoria Woman Faces Assisted Suicide Charge

Supreme Court Denies Latimer Appeal

From Tuesday, 1 January, 2002, 09:36 GMT BBC News:
Netherlands Legalises "Mercy Killing"

"Dutch medics back 'euthanasia' doctor"

Professor Claims Robert Latimer Started a Trend.

"Eloquent Defense of Life
Delivered in Parliamentary Euthanasia Debate"

"Dutch Doctor Convicted in Euthanasia Test Case"

Euthanasia and Related Issues

. . .Euthanasia Bill Defeated in Canada 228 - 59

Martin Amis calls for euthanasia booths on street corners

Euthanasia bill passes first step

Quebec physicians tentatively propose legal euthanasia

July 2009

Death with Dignity

Doctors: let us kill disabled babies [from The Sunday Times online

Draft policy would give Manitoba docs power to stop treatment

The big lie about euthanasia Legalizing the right to kill in the name of mercy threatens our children's lives

Only God grants death with dignity

Proposed euthanasia law gives licence to kill

Legal options to prolong Schiavo's life fade

Victoria Woman Faces Assisted Suicide Charge

Supreme Court Denies Latimer Appeal

From Tuesday, 1 January, 2002, 09:36 GMT BBC News: Netherlands Legalises "Mercy Killing"

"Dutch medics back 'euthanasia' doctor"

Professor Claims Robert Latimer Started a Trend.

"Eloquent Defense of Life Delivered in Parliamentary Euthanasia Debate"

"Dutch Doctor Convicted in Euthanasia Test Case"

Doctors: let us kill disabled babies
[from The Sunday Times online

The big lie about euthanasia
Legalizing the right to kill in the name of mercy threatens our children's lives

From Tuesday, 1 January, 2002, 09:36 GMT BBC News:
Netherlands Legalises "Mercy Killing"

"Eloquent Defense of Life
Delivered in Parliamentary Euthanasia Debate"