Thursday, May 5, 2016

Belgium Warns Canada: Oversight of euthanasia is an Illusion.

New Online Video Series: "Belgium's Advice to Canada."



Many doctors in Belgium no longer report cases of euthanasia because euthanasia is now considered a ‘normal medical procedure'. In this, our fourth and final video in "Belgium’s Advice to Canada: Oversight of euthanasia is an illusion", doctors, victims and advocates warn that effective oversight of euthanasia in Belgium is truly an illusion. The video features Etienne Montero, Lawyer Dean of the Faculty of Law of Namur; Tom Mortier, PhD; Prof Dr Benoit Beuselinck MD, PhD, Oncologist; and Marnix Coelmont, Teacher and Advocate.

As Canadians deliberate controversial Bill C-14 in light of the June 6 deadline, EPC is releasing select clips from our upcoming film, Vulnerable - The Euthanasia Deception, to be released in late June.

Please consider making a donation to the production of this film. We need and appreciate your support of any amount. Link to donate.

The first three videos in the series were:
The first video in the series is: “Medical Assistance in Dying - Don’t Go There!
The second video in the series is: Safeguards Are An Illusion.

The third video in the series is: “Protect Doctor’s Conscience Rights!

Contact Members of Parliament and Senators. Bill C-14 votes do not change anything.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The two votes on May 4 in the House of Commons on the euthanasia Bill C-14, one to close debate and one to send the bill to committee do not change anything. 

The 235 to 75 vote to send Bill C-14 to committee was disappointing, but only procedural. The 165 to 140 vote to close debate on Bill C-14 was undemocratic but not surprising considering the Supreme Court imposition of June 6 to pass legislation on euthanasia and assisted suicide.

EPC is impressed by Robert Falcon Ouellette (Liberal MP - Winnipeg Centre) who has strongly opposed Bill C-14 (Link to his CBC interview with Ouellette).

The fact is, achieving political movement requires all of our supporters to send letters to Members of Parliament and Senators. We also ask you to attend our rally on Wednesday June 1 on parliament hill (12 noon to 1:30 pm).

EPC urges you, to write to Canadian Senators, especially the members of the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs with your concerns about Bill C-14.

EPC also urges you to contact the members of parliament on the House of Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights, with your concerns about Bill C-14.

Resources for your communicating with committee members:
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Alex Schadenberg.
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by the Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia.
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Dr Will Johnston (EPC - BC).
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Andrew Coyne.
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Amy Hasbrouck (Toujours Vivant - Not Dead Yet).
Speech in parliament by Liberal MP Robert Falcon Ouellette opposing Bill C-14.

EPC presented before the House of Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights and we will be presenting to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

We need you to write to the members of these committees.

Victory in New York Court - No right to assisted suicide.

This article was published on the Not Dead Yet website on May 3, 2016

A clear and welcome ruling came down Tuesday, May 3rd, from the NY Appellate Division in an assisted suicide case in which NDY filed a friend-of-the-court brief joined by ten other national and state disability organizations. The Court found no constitutional right to assisted suicide. Below is an excerpt from the 36-page decision:

[P]laintiffs rely on two papers that purport to offer empirical evidence that Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, now in effect for over 20 years, has not invited the fears articulated by people opposed to aid-in-dying, such as an adverse impact on vulnerable populations, and the difficulty in distinguishing whether a wish to end one’s life is driven by a desire to control one’s death, clinical depression, or something else. However, even were a finder of fact to determine that aid-in-dying is “workable,” the issue before us transcends mere practical concerns. As the Supreme Court stated in Glucksberg, a state’s interest in preserving human life “is symbolic and aspirational as well as practical” (521 US at 729), favorably quoting the New York State Task Force, which observed:
“‘While suicide is no longer prohibited or penalized, the ban against assisted suicide and euthanasia shores up the notion of limits in human relationships. It reflects the gravity with which we view the decision to take one’s own life or the life of another, and our reluctance to encourage or promote these decisions.’ New York Task Force 131-132” (id.).
. . . . We find that, even giving plaintiffs the benefit of every reasonable inference, they have not presented sufficient allegations to suggest that the Penal Law has an implicit carve-out for aid-in-dying, or that, notwithstanding the precedents on the matter, the constitutionality of aid-in-dying is ripe for judicial reconsideration.

The issue before us unquestionably presents a host of legitimate concerns on both sides of the debate. As discussed above, plaintiffs present some compelling reasons for making aid- in-dying a legitimate option for those suffering from terminal illness. At the same time, the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law in 1994 “unanimously recommend[ed] that New York laws prohibiting assisted suicide and euthanasia should not be changed” (see Task Force, When Death Is Sought: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Medical Context [May 1994]). The Task Force based its view on the risks that could be presented to the elderly, poor, socially disadvantaged, and those without access to good medical care; and the role of treatable symptoms such as pain and depression in creating a desire for lethal medications. It also noted that most doctors lack a sufficiently close relationship to their patients to appropriately evaluate a request for help in ending life, and expressed the concern that it could open the door to euthanasia of those incapable of giving consent. We are not persuaded from the record before us that, even though society’s viewpoints on a host of social issues have changed over the last 20 years, aid-in-dying is an issue where a legitimate consensus has formed.

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

EPC: Write to Senators and Members of Parliament.

The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs will be hearing interventions concerning Bill C-14, the bill that will legalize and “regulate” euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.

Last week, EPC urged you to contact the members of parliament on the House of Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights, who hearing from groups and individuals from across Canada on Bill C-14

EPC needs you, to contact Canadian Senators, especially the members of the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs with your concerns about Bill C-14.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) presented to the House of Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights this week and next week we will be presenting before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee. The Senate has the ability to amend or defeat Bill C-14. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is also organizing a rally on Parliament Hill on Wednesday June 1 from 12 noon to 1:30 pm.

Resources for your communicating with committee members:
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Alex Schadenberg.
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by the Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia.
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Dr Will Johnston (EPC - BC).
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Andrew Coyne.
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Amy Hasbrouck (Toujours Vivant - Not Dead Yet).
Speech in parliament by Liberal MP Robert Falcon Ouellette opposing Bill C-14.

Contact information - Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs members:

Committee Chair: Senator Bob Runciman (CPC) bob.runciman@sen.parl.gc.ca

Deputy Chair: Senator Mobina Jaffer (Lib) mobina.jaffer@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator George Baker (Lib) george.baker@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator Denise Batters (CPC) denise.batters@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu (IND) boisvp@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator James Cowan (Lib) jim.cowan@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator Nicole Eaton (CPC) nicole.eaton@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator Serge Joyal (Lib) serge.joyal@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator Thomas Johnson McInnis (CPC) thomasjohnson.mcinnis@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator Paul McIntyre (CPC) paul.mcintyre@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator Donald Plett (CPC) don.plett@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Senator Vernon White (CPC) senatorwhite@sen.parl.gc.ca

EPC urges you to send letters to Members of Parliament and Senators. Link to contact Members of Parliament. Link to contact Senators.

Letters to Members of Parliament and Senators can be mailed (Postage Free) when using the following address:

(Name) Member of Parliament
House of Commons
Ottawa Ontario K1A 0A6

Senator (Name)
Senate of Canada
Ottawa Ontario K1A 0A4

Medical error is the third leading cause of death in the US.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.



A study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on May 3, 2016 found that Medical error is the third leading cause of death representing at least 251,000 deaths per year in the United States. The study by Dr Martin Makery and Dr Michael Daniel from the John's Hopkins Department of Surgery is more comprehensive than previous studies.

The Washington Post reported that:

Makary's research involves a more comprehensive analysis of four large studies, including ones by the Health and Human Services Department's Office of the Inspector General and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality that took place between 2000 to 2008. His calculation of 251,000 deaths equates to nearly 700 deaths a day -- about 9.5 percent of all deaths annually in the United States.
The Washington Post reported Mackery as stating:
"When a plane crashes, we don’t say this is confidential proprietary information the airline company owns. We consider this part of public safety. Hospitals should be held to the same standards,"
Medical error is the third leading cause of death in the US. Very few doctors face serious repercussions for their errors. People have the right to have greater protection in medical facilities. The lives of patients and patient safety must be the priority in medicine. 

This study does not indicate how many injuries or long-term health issues are caused by medical error.

Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide is not safe because it enables doctors to cover-up their medical errors by approving death for patients who are unnecessarily suffering.

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Belgium's Advice to Canada: Protect Doctor's Conscience Rights!

New Online Video Series: "Belgium's Advice to Canada."


The first two videos in the series were released last week.
The first video in the series was: Medical Assistance in Dying - Don’t Go There!
The second video in the series was: Safeguards Are An Illusion.

Today EPC is releasing the third video in the series Belgium’s Advice to Canada titled: “Protect Doctor’s Conscience Rights!” Two doctors from Belgium discuss the contentious issue of conscience rights in their country since the law on euthanasia was passed 15 years ago. The online video features Prof Dr Benoit Beuselinck MD, PhD, Oncologist, Belgium; Catherine Dopchie, MD, Oncologist, Belgium; and Marnix Coelmont, Teacher, Advocate.

As Canadians deliberate on the controversial Bill C-14 in light of the June 6 imposed deadline, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is releasing four short videos entitled: “Belgium’s Advice to Canada” - select clips from our upcoming film, Vulnerable - The Euthanasia Deception, coming June 2016.

Please consider making a donation to the production of this film. We need and appreciate your support of any amount. Link to donate.

The final video in the series will be released on Thurday, May 5: “Oversight is an Illusion” - Belgium’s Advice to Canada.

https://www.facebook.com/vulnerablefilm/ (Facebook)

EPC needs you to contact Members of Parliament.

The House of Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be hearing interventions concerning Bill C-14, the bill that will legalize and “regulate” euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.

Several MP's have said that they are receiving more communication from members of the euthanasia lobby than from our supporters. 


EPC urges you to contact members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with your concerns about Bill C-14.

EPC also urges you to contact the members of the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.


Resources information:
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Alex Schadenberg.
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by the Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia.
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Dr Will Johnston (EPC - BC).
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Charles Lewis.
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Andrew Coyne.
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Amy Hasbrouck (Toujours Vivant - Not Dead Yet).

Contact information for Committee members:

Committee Chair: Anthony Housefather (Lib) - Anthony.Housefather@parl.gc.ca

Committee Vice Chair: Ted Falk (CPC) - Ted.Falk@parl.gc.ca

Committee Vice Chair: Murray Rankin (NDP) - Murray.Rankin@parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Chris Bittle (Lib) - Chris.Bittle@parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Michael Cooper (CPC) - Michael.Cooper@parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Colin Fraser (Lib) - Colin.Fraser@parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Ahmed Hussen (Lib) - Ahmed.Hussen@parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Iqra Khalid (Lib) - Iqra.Khalid@parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Ron McKinnon (Lib) - Ron.McKinnon@parl.gc.ca

Committee Member: Hon. Rob Nicholson (CPC) - rob.nicholson@parl.gc.ca

EPC also encourages you to send letters to your Members of Parliament. Link to contact your Member of Parliament.

You can mail letters to Members of Parliament (Postage Free) by sending letters to:

(Name) Member of Parliament
House of Commons
Ottawa Ontario K1A 0A6

Robert Falcon Ouellette, suicide / assisted suicide, speech in parliament

The following is the speech delivered by Robert Falcon Ouellette MP (Winnipeg Centre Lib) at 6:30 pm on Monday May 2, 2016, as reported by Hansard.

Robert Falcon Ouellette MP (Winnipeg Centre Lib)
Madam Speaker, a report in The Globe and Mail on April 24, 2016, says 13-year-old Sheridan Hookimaw killed herself on the banks of the river that winds through Attawapiskat. The sickly girl had been flown out for weekly medical appointments. She wanted to end her pain, and in the process, she set off a chain reaction not only in her community but in communities right across this country, which we are still dealing with today.

This debate strikes at the very heart of the meaning of life, it strikes at the heart of bureaucracy, and it strikes at the heart of how we care for the most vulnerable in our society. I have been told over and over again that this situation is different, that there is no connection.

In the indigenous world view, everything is interconnected. It is holistic, meaning that when a change is made in one place, the impact will be felt elsewhere, and the two cannot be separated. In the western world view, often we compartmentalize things. We believe that we can play, that we can control certain situations, that we can effect change here and not see change in other places. Above all, we have come to believe ourselves able to predict and control all, to control the future. This does not mean, though, that we should not take action.

The impact of this bill on people in Toronto may be very different than on the people in Nunavik or Attawapiskat. Our role as parliamentarians is to place ourselves in the moccasins of others, to place ourselves outside of our own experiences, to see the world through another cosmology and other world view, and to see the impact that our decisions may have on others.

We are making profound changes in concepts surrounding life, which cannot be undone in the future. In the indigenous tradition and philosophy, we are required to think seven generations into the future. If I am wrong and there is no connection between Attawapiskat and physician-assisted dying or suicide, if the average person does not see a connection and communities do not see a greater stress, then I will gladly say I was wrong; but if there is an impact, which is caused by the valorization of suicide, then what?

When the House passed amendments to the Criminal Code on other issues in our criminal justice system, who would have thought that indigenous peoples would now make up 23.2% of the prison population? It seems that madam justice is blind to the suffering of many of her fellow citizens. We have equal laws, and yet the treatment and effects are unequal across our country. We make laws often for the average person, but the impact is felt most by those who are on the margins of society.

Even though we have the Gladue rulings in our justice system and cases where we are supposed to take into consideration someone's upbringing, someone's past, unfortunately, those are not reflected in our justice system. Therefore, how can we be assured that the changes we are making today in the House will not have an equally detrimental impact on others?

My earliest memory, one of my strongest memories, is as a little six-year-old boy. My mother had just lost a house. We were in tough economic times in Calgary, Alberta, and she could no longer support us. She was a single mom, and she went off on the road looking for work. She decided at one point she could no longer raise me or my little brother by herself and she needed help, so she went to her ex-husband, my father. My father was a residential school survivor, an alcoholic, and a member of gangs. We knew all these things.

We knew he had a terrible temper. We were told this as young children, and we were very scared as children. We were dropped off at his place, with his parents, my grandmother and grandfather, and we were very upset. It is the only time that I remember my brother peeing his bed, because of the stress, because my mother had to find work because of economic stresses in her life.

I remember climbing a tree in the back yard and wrapping a rope around my neck at the age of six. This is a true story. People often think it cannot be true, but this happens in our country, like the case of the 13-year-old girl in Attawapiskat.

I wrapped that rope around my neck and thought, “Should I jump off into this universe, which is before me?” It was in that back yard that somehow I made the decision to climb down out of that tree and unwind that rope from around my neck.

If in my life I had seen, or I had known, that my grandmother had somehow used physician-assisted dying or physician-assisted suicide, or others in my family had completed the irreparable act, then it would have made it much more difficult for me to continue.

We might not think the impact will be there, but we do not know. We assume we know these things. We are deciding the future of a few for the end of a few.

In the case of Sheridan Hookimaw, as a society, we are unable to provide the necessary care, the love and the protection. We have failed our most vulnerable.

The Canadian Webbian bureaucracy was unable to respond to the needs of a 13-year-old girl. How can we be sure that it will now be able to respond to the needs of all in the future in our societies?

This debate is about life itself. Indigenous people never knew of suicide. It was unheard of in indigenous communities. Yet it now continues to plague our communities, and the spirit of suicide seems to always be there.

Life is not easy. It is about struggle, about fighting for another day. If indigenous peoples had committed suicide, then we would not be here today for all the trials and tribulations we have faced.

I participate in one of the high ceremonies of the indigenous custom and tradition of the Plains Cree. It is called the sundance. It is a four-day ceremony, and for three days and three nights, no food or water shall pass my lips. I pierce my body to sacrifice myself for others, in prayer for them. I do this not for myself, not to ask for something for myself, but for others.

In the sundance, in the sundance lodge, my Sundance Chief David Blacksmith talks about the spirit of suicide, how it is coming to take our young and is starting to take our old people, how it is affecting our society, how it is destroying our sense of community, and I have to listen to it. I have to be moved by the words he brings, because the people surrounding me in the sundance have all been affected by it.

We are placing ourselves now outside of nature. Nature itself is hard, to strive, to struggle, to see another day. It is a struggle that is noble. Now placing the tasks in the hands of the state removes us from nature, telling the state that it will now be the one who will be enabling us to do these things; someone else will be deciding, bureaucracy will now be deciding.

Others may feel that they are a burden. Others may say that they are a burden. I think there is something noble in sacrifice and in striving in the struggle for life itself, to hold someone's hands in the final moment, to have to grow up and not simply say, “I am going to hand it off to someone else to look after, but that I will stand there or I will sit there, holding your hand at that exact moment. Even in your final breaths, even though it may be difficult, we will continue on”.

Perhaps this is just another step on the road of moral relativism that we are in nowadays, but even our judiciary cannot serve as a balance between the different societies making up Canada. We are in a sorry state. We have truly entered a new age, one of the throwaway culture where all boundaries are starting to crumble.

Finally I would like to say, in the words of Elder Winston Wuttunee, “If you cry, your children will die”. It is dangerous to abandon one's self to the luxury of grief. It deprives one of courage and even of the wish for recovery.

From an indigenous perspective, I look at this bill and I cannot support it, because it leads to a place where I do not believe we are looking out for the interests of all people within our society. It is not allowing us to fully comprehend the needs of everyone who makes up Canadian societies, but really, it is taking us down a path that is very dangerous, and we do not know where it ends.

Let us be very careful in this House, and take the time that is necessary as we make our decisions.

Robert Falcon Ouellette then responded to a challenge by a Member of Parliament who argued that Ouellette's comparison of assisted suicide to the suicide deaths in Attawapiskat was inappropriate. Hansard reported Ouellette as responding:

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, perhaps the member fails to understand indigenous philosophy, which is about the interconnectedness of everything. The member may believe that these are unconnected events, but in fact they are connected. We could debate about the definition of the bill. We could say “medically assisted dying” or “medically assisted suicide”. Our use of terminology is very important. If we use “medically assisted suicide”, it has connotations to it that people will understand. I am sure at some point that people will be banging on the doors at some emergency wards and saying they are suffering, they want to end it, and ask for help.

I apologize if I offended anyone in invoking the name of the young girl, but her name is in the newspapers and her case is well known. If we cannot speak truth in this place and use the truths that are out in society here in the House of Commons then where else will it happen?

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Declare Total Non-Cooperation With Assisted Suicide.

The article was published by First Things on April 29, 2016.

Wesley Smith
By Wesley Smith

I recently gave a speech to a group of conservative senior citizens in California, arguing against assisted suicide, which is due to become legal there in June. Assisted suicide is not an issue that allows for fence-sitting, so although I expected (and received) a friendly reception for the most part, I knew that at least a few people would use the Q & A to tell me that I was full of beans.

Sure enough. “You have made a cogent and reasoned presentation, Mr. Smith,” one of the first questioners told me, his voice rising in anger as he spoke. “But if I want to die, I want to be able to die, and I don’t want my family or me stigmatized by people saying I committed suicide!” In other words, nothing that I said mattered. The man was set in his opinion, and neither the facts about euthanasia practice nor the need for accurate terminology regarding self-killing would change that.

And so it went. Those who agreed with me—the majority of this particular audience—spoke of how their vulnerable loved ones would be endangered by the law, while the law’s supporters mostly made angry assertions about their right to die. Dialogue? What’s dialogue?

When I began advocating against assisted suicide twenty-three years ago, those on both sides of the debate used the same moral lexicon. That is no longer the case. Today, supporters and opponents of the culture of death have radically different and mutually exclusive worldviews, outlooks that do not necessarily track with the usual left-versus-right, religious-versus-secular paradigms that often roil our public controversies. In such a milieu, all that either side can do is hold a mirror up to the benefits and consequences of these divergent philosophies and wait for people to decide which path they wish society to follow.

Usually—still—that means defeat for assisted suicide. The more details people hear about the issue beyond emotional appeals and bromides of “choice,” the less people tend to support legalization. Indeed, Massachusetts voters rejected legalization in 2012 even though early polls showed popular support. Last year and this, more than half the states saw energetic and committed legislative attempts to allow assisted suicide, including in Wisconsin, Maryland, and Colorado. All were defeated decisively, with the awful exception of California. On the international front, the United Kingdom’s Parliament overwhelmingly rejected legalization in 2015, but the Canadian Supreme Court imposed a right to euthanasia across that country a year earlier.

What should opponents of the culture of death do if they—like I, a native Californian—live in a jurisdiction that legalizes assisted suicide? I suggest a policy of total and unequivocal non-cooperation with the suicide agenda.

1. Do not participate in efforts to regulate medicalized killing: After the Canadian Supreme Court issued its decision, I was particularly disheartened when a prominent opponent of legalization served on a panel to recommend regulatory guidelines to govern doctor-administered death. Her intention was to help limit the harm. Understandable as that is, I disagree vehemently with the approach. Participating as a colleague with pro-euthanasia believers in fashioning suicide rules validates euthanasia as a policy. It says that your previous opposition to legalization was not based on bedrock moral principle but was merely a matter of negotiable policy differences. It also makes you complicit in the workings of the policy. Moreover, the harm limitations that may be achieved will likely be short-lived, as the guidelines will eventually be expanded or ignored. Better to remain consistent in opposing the now-legal procedure as bad medicine and even worse public policy. Who knows? Such consistent opposition may help persuade some not to end their lives.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Belgium's Advice to Canada: "Safeguards Are An Illusion"

New Online Video Series


The first video in the series: Medical Assistance in Dying - Don’t Go There! was released two days ago.

As Canadians debate the controversial Bill C-14 in light of the June 6 Supreme Court imposed legislation deadline, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is releasing four short videos entitled: “Belgium’s Advice to Canada” from selected clips from our upcoming documentary film, Vulnerable - The Euthanasia Deception

In January 2016, a film crew went to Belgium, where euthanasia has been legal since 2002. Victims and advocates offer a stern warning to Canada and any country considering enacting laws that allow assisted death. 

The first video in the series was: Medical Assistance in Dying" - Don’t Go There!.

Vulnerable – The Euthanasia Deception is produced by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition in association with DunnMedia & Entertainment

Upcoming Videos:
May 3: “Protect Doctor’s Conscience Rights” - Belgium’s Advice to Canada
May 5: “Oversight is an Illusion” - Belgium’s Advice to Canada

EPC needs your financial support to complete this most important documentary film. Donate here.

www.vulnerablefilm.com
https://www.facebook.com/vulnerablefilm/

Link to the promo video: Vulnerable - The Euthanasia Deception.
Link to the short video: Mark Pickup - The problem with assisted suicide.