Friday, August 26, 2016

A New Documentary Confronting the “Euthanasia Deception”

The Euthanasia Deception - Promo from DunnMedia on Vimeo.

By Richard Weikart
“What is our society becoming? It’s a quality society. Only the best will survive.”
So testifies Belgian Professor Tom Mortier in the powerful new documentary, “The Euthanasia Deception,” that is both thought-provoking and emotionally gripping.

Many interviews therein strip away the sugar-coated rhetoric that is increasingly tempting us to embrace euthanasia and assisted suicide as supposedly compassionate alternatives to agony and suffering. Mortier, however, knows something about the more sordid reality: without his prior knowledge his physically healthy mother was legally killed by a physician because she suffered from depression.

Belgium, which legalized euthanasia almost fifteen years ago, is the focus of much attention in “The Euthanasia Deception,” because it serves as a powerful warning to us. Physicians in Belgium are allowed by law to administer lethal injections to patients, even to children (with parental consent), if they say they are suffering in any way and want to die. They do not have to be suffering any physical pain, nor do they have to be physically sick in any way.

"The Euthanasia Deception” illustrates that though the law supposedly requires the patient’s consent, now that euthanasia has been accepted by Belgian society, some physicians are killing patients with Alzheimer’s or dementia without their consent. Though technically illegal, the government is turning a blind eye to these frequent cases of involuntary euthanasia, thus de facto sanctioning it.

What has brought about this “massive cultural shift” in the past couple of decades that has caused some countries (as well as some states in the United States) to jettison the ideals of the Hippocratic Oath, which forbade physicians from helping people kill themselves?

As Mortier’s quotation suggests, one of the most powerful themes to emerge from “The Euthanasia Deception” is that we no longer consider all people’s lives valuable. We now measure the value of a person’s life by our (elastic) judgement about their “quality of life.” Thus, some human lives are valuable, while others are not.

This comes through poignantly in an interview with “Lionel,” a Belgian man whose twenty-year old daughter is severely disabled. He explains that many people, including strangers on the street, have asked him over the years why he did not euthanize his daughter, whom he loves as dearly as his other children.

Another man, “Mark,” who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at age 30, explains that at one point in his life he was very depressed and wanted to die. Now, many years later, he is extremely thankful that assisted suicide was not legal at that time.

Mark is delighted to be alive, even though he uses a wheelchair. In the interview he then waxed rather indignant, pointing out that while people with disabilities are being offered assisted suicide, healthy people are offered suicide prevention programs. Apparently we don’t really believe in human equality.

The film dismantles three key deceptive ideas used to promote euthanasia. First, euthanasia proponents try to take the moral high ground by presenting it as a compassionate alternative to pain and suffering. However, as several physicians and palliative care specialists explain, pain is rarely the reason for euthanasia. Rather patients usually request euthanasia because of fear of disability, or because they feel they will be a burden to others.

The really compassionate choice for us as a society is to care for people with disabilities and dying, loving them until the end. Indeed the word compassion derives from root words that mean to suffer along with (someone). Killing is not compassion.

Second, euthanasia advocates claim that euthanasia is an individual right that provides the individual with “autonomy.” As one person being interviewed astutely remarked, euthanasia may end pain for one individual, but it does so by transferring much pain to the next generation.

I was disappointed that no one in the film mentioned another obvious problem with the autonomy argument: suicide brings one’s autonomy to a screeching halt. We should ban assisted suicide for the same reason we ban slavery: because it is the antithesis of personal liberty. We don’t let people choose to become slaves.

Finally, fans of euthanasia insist that safeguards will protect the vulnerable. Belgium is a powerful counterargument, as they have fairly quickly allowed more and more forms of euthanasia for almost any ailments, even purely psychological problems. Worse yet, physicians are admitting that they do not follow the law, but nothing is being done to constrain their unfettered killing.

If you want to understand the perils of the “culture of death” that is gaining ground in our society, you owe it to yourself to watch this video. It not only confronts the false arguments, but it portrays the ways that euthanasia hurts all of us—the victims and the survivors.

“The Euthanasia Deception” is directed by Kevin Dunn and produced by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition in association with DunnMedia & Entertainment. Information about “The Euthanasia Deception” is available at

Editor’s note. Richard Weikart is professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus, and author of “The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life and Hitler’s Religion.”

Soylent Green and Assisted Suicide as A "Life Style"

This article was written by William Peace and published on his blog on August 25, 2016.

William Peace is a Syracuse University Professor and disability rights leader. 

William Peace.
About ten days ago I wrote about Betsy Davis who ended her life and in so doing created an elaborate "Rebirth Ceremony". Davis was among the first people to use California'a euphemistically titled End of Life Option Act. Let's drop the pretense and describe the law as is: assisted suicide legislation. A few days ago an online magazine I read, Vox, published a "Rebirth Ceremony" party goers personal account of the party. As you would expect, I was appalled and taken aback that Vox published the story. 

The long essay gushes over how sad and wonderful the ceremony was and is replete with a description of a fashion show in which party goers try on Betsey's clothes. Yes, the author apparently fell in love with a vibrant red Donna Karen wrap dress that was difficult to figure out how to wear. Here is the dress in question gayly worn by the author.

Betsy you see has ALS and is terminally ill. Clearly, she could never enjoy wearing such a "frock". I breathlessly read that "Betsy groans in frustration. She's unable to talk because she is in the final stages of ALS, a neurodegenerative disease that is slowly depriving her of the power to move, speak, eat and breathe. Like many of the 30 party goers who flew in for the "Rebirth Ceremony" I am supposed to be impressed with the shindig. Many details are included. A random sampling:

It hadn't occurred to me that assisted suicide couldn't be wrong, because it was clearly what Betsy wanted. 
My friends and I rented a house in Ojai, close to Betsy's, for the weekend. We understood our job was to have as much fun as possible. 
From 5 to 7pm we would drink cocktails while picking out Betsy souvineers from her remaining belongings--everything must go. 
One friend brought balloons altered to read "Happy Re-Birthday". Betsy's photographer friend documented everything like a wedding.

A Tesla Model X with Falcon wing doors was at the ready to transport her to the ceremony site.
We were instructed to walk up a hill to a vista where white shade tents, a massage table, and an alter stood before white folding chairs--once again like a wedding. She was lifted into the Tesla X, laughing with joy as the Falcon doors closed, radiant in her blue and white robe. Despite our collective concern, we cheered her on as she was wheeled into the ceremony site. Lots of hooting and hollering, as if she'd just kissed the bride.

The above reads like something on page 6 of the New York Post tabloid wedding section in which two movie stars get married. This is not a spoof. This is very real. All week I have been thinking this is akin to a science fiction novel. Surely a person with wealth and power and the ability to have 30 people fly from across the nation might have put some energy into a little thing called life. Perhaps she did. I have no idea. A few things are a given in this story. ALS is certainly a fatal condition. Those who are terminally ill will die for certain. They will acquire an unwanted and horrific disability. Living connected to machines is a fate worse than death. Those unidentified machines are most likely a feeding tube and ventilator often referred to as life support. The focus here is on the drama of death. As I wrote ten days ago assisted suicide has become a life style.

I have thought long and hard about the classic 1973 science fiction movie Soylent Green. It starred young and old actors alike--Edward G. Robinson, Chuck Conners, Charlston Heston and others. The film was set in 2022 New York City. The population of earth experienced run away growth and New York City had 40 million residents. The city was encased in yellow haze of pollution. The worlds natural resources were depleted and people lived in filth. Heat waves were rampant and tormented the population. Poverty was wide spread world wide. Corporations replaced ineffective governments and corporations ran all social services. The Soylent Corporation provided meager amounts of food in the form of wafers of "Soylent Yellow" and "Soylent Red". In 2022 a new product is released--"Soylent Green". It was made from ocean plankton. Real food had long since been forgotten. Only the fabulously wealthy ate precious commodities like vegetables and meat. Water too was in short supply. Riots took place frequently. For those that remember the film, this dystopic setting was perfectly imagined. Spoiler alert for those that do not recall the film. The most famous scene in the film is Charleston Heston yelling in agony that "Soylent Green is made of people" as he is carried away. I recall a different scene. I remember Edward G. Robinson known as Sol or "Book". For Soylent Green is made of people--people who seek out assisted suicide. It is a culture of death not life. And please do not misinterpret those words. They are rational and devoid of any religious connotations.

I cannot fathom how we as a society ignore rampant ableism and embrace death as a life style choice. This is not science fiction but reality. I know when I enter my class, Bioethics and Disability, next week every student will be in favor of assisted suicide. That is the norm these days. Assisted suicide has become a given. I suppose assisted suicide reflects the American penchant for valuing independence and control. Both are defined in the narrowest sense of the term. If you can't get out of bed independently, dress yourself, and perform the usual activities of daily living your life is inherently inferior if not worthless. This cursory line of reasoning falls flat for me. In reality ableism knows know bounds. It is a lethal ism. Lives are at stake and that includes mine and millions of others. This reality keeps me up and I am reminded of the bellow scene in Soylent Green.

Thursday, August 25, 2016

For disabled people the idea of assisted suicide couldn’t be bigger.

Robyn Hunt
Robyn Hunt responds to David Seymour by explaining why people with disabilities strongly oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, in her article published on August 24 in The Spinoff. Hunt writes:
I assure David Seymour that assisted suicide is a really big and complicated deal. It is no coincidence that disabled people all over the world oppose it. Our opposition arises from a (largely invisible) dark and troubled history, negative attitudes and behaviours towards disabled people and current human rights abuses. Disabled people see assisted suicide as dangerous because of their already marginalised status. Some disabled people are particularly vulnerable. 
Disabled and other people who oppose assisted suicide are not religious fanatics. Not Dead Yet Aotearoa was founded on disability rights not religious convictions. Assisted suicide supporters attempting to diminish the opposition by ignoring some and making sweeping statements about others is not helpful. 
Part of our unease relates to evidence that lives of disabled people are valued less than those of others. There is a history of euthanasia and eugenics, which have gone hand in hand for disabled people. The most notable, yet largely unknown T4 programme initiated by the Nazi Third Reich was the forerunner to the better known holocaust of Jews, gays, gypsies and others who did not meet the Aryan ideal. Around half a million people with of all kinds of impairments were killed. Some were tortured with “experimentation” before death. The first child to be euthanised was killed at the request of his parents. They were labelled “useless eaters”. Many disabled people today still feel the residual power of that label as they struggle with cuts to services, parsimonious supports and subtle pressures to find work. 
Even today those who murder their disabled family members, often vulnerable children, usually receive lesser sentences than other murderers. Their crimes may be labelled by the media and others as “mercy killings”. 
Disabled people in the past were often discarded by society, “put away” in institutions popularly labelled “bins”, forgotten by society and history and eventually buried in unmarked graves. Today’s mini-institutions still harbour instances of violence and abuse, occasionally gaining media exposure. Disabled people, especially women, feel more vulnerable because they know they are more likely to experience violence and abuse and often feel powerless. Powerlessness and assisted suicide can be a dangerous combination. 
Disability hate crime goes generally unremarked by public notice. While there were widespread and highly visible outpourings of solidarity and grief for victims of recent terror attacks in Nice, Paris and Orlando, there was a resounding public silence after the murders at Kanagawa Kyodokai at Tsukui Yamayuri En, west of Tokyo. Nineteen disabled people were stabbed to death as they slept. The killer was a former employee at the residential/rehabilitation facility for disabled people. In 50 minutes he killed 10 men and nine women and injured 24 others. 
He said afterwards it was better “that disabled people disappear”. He had offered to euthanise multi-disabled people for the state. The names of the victims will never be released because of the stigma and shame for their families. Disabled people everywhere were chilled and fearful in the face of widespread public indifference to the worst mass killing in Japan since World War II. 
Today in New Zealand disabled women can still have their children removed for adoption without their consent. Disabled people, particularly women are still sterilised without their consent, and are subject to invasive treatments such as the growth-attenuation Ashley Treatment, which threaten their bodily integrity. It is still difficult for some disabled people to have accessible information about medical procedures to enable them to make informed choices. Introducing assisted suicide would re-medicalise disabled people’s lives after a long fight to escape the unnecessary medicalisation of disability. 
Another serious human right violation in contravention of New Zealand’s international civil and political rights obligation sees a small group of disabled people incarcerated for years with no redress, despite having committed no crime. They are powerless and forgotten by wider society. 
Disabled people can and do have agency, but physical and other vulnerability and reliance on others for basic daily needs, while not being the “fate worse than death” some people imagine, does present complexities and added risk to daily living. 
Like most people we believe in the alleviation of suffering, such an untrustworthy and loaded word in this context of assisted suicide. One person’s perceived suffering can still be another’s rewarding daily life. Assisted suicide is not the only way to find dignity in death. We support the best palliative care and pain relief. Many disabled people would like to see medical marijuana legalised. Disabled people have committed suicide or attempted it. Yet there is no data collected or suicide prevention programme for disabled people when disability is framed in negative language and the “fate worse than death”. 
Free choice is another plank in the platform of assisted suicide proponents. Yet for many people, not just disabled people, choices are highly constrained, by circumstance, by resources, by subtle, and not so subtle pressure, for example, disabled friends with high support needs have had to fight hard to have externally inserted “Do Not Resuscitate” removed from from their medical records. 
Assisted suicide is therefore not simple, the “easy option” David Seymour would have us believe. Most disabled people remain focused on the goal of a good life, with all its difficulty, before thinking about a good death. There has been no demand for assisted suicide at any of the consultation meetings around the country (five) for the disability strategy that I have attended. 
Many disabled people know only too well the low value society places on disabled lives but they don’t focus on the common view that disability is all about deficit and despair even though there is a healthy level of cynicism about the systems and structures that are supposed to protect us. We know from experience that even with the best will in the world they don’t always work. 
Politicians see assisted suicide as a straightforward issue at their peril.
Robyn Hunt is a joint co-ordinator of Not Dead Yet Aotearoa, a focus for disabled peoples’ voices in NZ against euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

New Documentary The Euthanasia Deception Challenges the Practice of Assisted Suicide.

The Euthanasia Deception - Promo from DunnMedia on Vimeo.

Media Release: Nashville Publicity Group.

The film explores Belgium’s 15-year experiment with euthanasia, the long-term implications of assisted dying laws and offers a dire warning for the rest of the world.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016 — (NASHVILLE, Tennessee)

The Euthanasia Deception, a one-hour documentary that explores Belgium’s 15 year experiment with euthanasia, will be available on September 12th. This thought-provoking, emotionally gripping film is a dire warning for the rest of the world, featuring powerful testimonies from Belgium and beyond of those devastated by the false ideology of ‘mercy killing.’

The film exposes three main deceptions of assisted suicide. First, that euthanasia and assisted suicide are a form of compassion. The second is the myth of autonomy: that decisions made between doctor and patient operate in a vacuum. And finally, that government ‘safeguards’ can truly protect the vulnerable.

With expert analysis from both medical and legal professions, The Euthanasia Deception reveals the serious, long-term implications of assisted suicide laws, and proves that all of us become vulnerable when end-of-life care is handed over to lawmakers.

Numerous people whose lives have been affected by euthanasia and assisted suicide are interviewed for the film, including: Professor Tom Mortier, whose depressed mother was euthanized without his knowledge; “Hendrick,” whose grandfather’s death was hastened without request; “James,” who regrets family pressure to euthanize his mother; “Lionel,” who is asked by Belgian strangers why he will not euthanize his severely disabled daughter; “Mark,” an MS survivor, grateful that there was no law allowing him to die by assisted suicide when he was diagnosed; and “Kristina,” a nurse who shares her remorseful experience with assisted death.

The release of The Euthanasia Deception marks the launch of, a new global resistance movement that utilizes the power of film and social media to combat and resist the acceptance of euthanasia while providing jurisdictions with data to resist its legalization. It is also dedicated to providing support and assistance to through Compassionate Community Care services - to help people who need advice concerning medical treatment issues or need protection from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The Euthanasia Deception is directed by Kevin Dunn and produced by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition in association with DunnMedia & Entertainment and supported by thousands of like-minded organizations and individuals throughout the world.

Watch the official trailer at

Visit the official website at

Assisted Suicide - A lifestyle choice?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Bill Peace PhD teaches at Syracuse University.
Disability rights leader and academic, Bill Peace, recently wrote an article concerning the assisted suicide death party by Betsy Davis. Davis. It is culturally significant that some media outlets turned her death party into celebration turning assisted suicide into a culturally "cool" act.

Peace states in his article:

No physician could force a patient to accept a feeding tube. No physician could force a patient to use a ventilator. These are choices Davis chose to make. At any point after she was diagnosed with ALS she had the choice to refuse treatment. Physicians could be opposed to Davis refusal to utilize life extending care but that would be her choice. The operative word here is choice. Davis made many choices post ALS diagnosis. In June of this year Davis made the choice to live long long enough to end her life via assisted suicide. She made these choices and many more. But there is a difference between making these choices and her human rights. Choice are not the equivalent to rights. Given the severity of ALS any one of a number of choices Davis made could have led to her death. Instead, she made a choice to die a very public and misleading death. In her effort to advocate for assisted suicide legislation she has had predecessors who also had public deaths on behalf of Compassion and Choices. The emotional rhetoric found in tabloids such as People sells. Sympathetic television news segments generate ratings. Again, this misleading emotional made for mass media consumption works. The fact it is wrong is lost in the flow of tears. I too cry but not for Davis but for all those whose lives are at risk. 
Having been through the medical mill as a morbidly sick child and narrowly escaping death from a severe wound that took over a year to heal, I will readily admit I have suffered. That suffering has taken the form of gut wrenching pain and serious debilitating depression. Suffering is decidedly unpleasant but to expect to avoid suffering throughout one's life is not realistic. I do my best to avoid suffering but I can freely states I have suffered far more the average human being. Not to revert to my Catholic upbringing but I can state with certainty that suffering has made me a stronger human being. In an effort to eliminate suffering we are being foolish. I don't want others to suffer but like it or not all humans will suffer. Suffering is part of the human condition. The effort to avoid suffering is understandable but unrealistic and there is more than a bit of narcissism involved. Hence the death selfie. 
I am sure my words will be met with disgust by those who support assisted suicide legislation. How dare I criticize a person's "right to die". How dare I impose my beliefs on others. Some will proclaim I am an opponent of individual freedom. Others will proclaim I want to undermine autonomy. This makes good fodder for debate. Typical others thoroughly enjoy such a debate. A perfect example of such a "good natured debate" can be found the edited volume Cognitive Disability and its Challenge to Moral Philosophy. Read Chapter 22 and the exchange between Eva Kittay, Jeff McMahon, and Peter Singer that illustrates we are talking about a two tiered morality in which some lives have more value than others. I know this two tiered system all too well. Most of my life typical others have made it abundantly clear my life is inherently less. Paralysis is a fate worse than death. My body in Davis estimation has been entombed. This viewpoint is wildly wrong. I know this. Liz Carr knows this. My paralyzed peers know this. My blind and deaf friends know this. Our ability to thrive in the face of a myriad of bodily deficits should be celebrated as human adaptation at its finest. Instead, we get the message loud and clear. We are inherently less human. We are a burden. We are a drain on limited health care resources. All things considered, it would be in the best interest of society if we did live. This is couched in polite language of course. Everyone is kind to the handicapped. We cripples are special. We have your best interests in mind I am told. When I hear these words, "we have your best interests in mind", I am certain of one thing: I shudder in fear and get as far away as humanly possible from the person that uttered those dangerous words. Believe me, I can take care of myself. I have thrived in a hostile world for over 35 years. Don't be fooled by emotional rhetoric surrounding the right to die. See it for what it is. Needlessly premature death to lives worth living.
Peace recognizes that legalizing and now promoting assisted suicide will effect the attitudes towards people with disabilities. The Betsy Davis campaign is part of a plan to turn assisted suicide from a criminal act of medical killing to a cultural "avant garde" act.

Sunday, August 21, 2016

We all have a role to stop euthanasia. But the task is monumental. Be ready.

By Charles Lewis

Over the past few years many of us have written and spoken about the evils of euthanasia. Part of me always has wondered why this was such tough sell. After all, our basic instincts tell us that those who are hurt and sick should be cared for.

There is nothing radical in this. Even in war enemy combatants will often tend to the enemy's wounded out of a sense of some basic decency.

Those healing instincts are born of morality. It does not have to be religious morality but some code that is ingrained that, like a compass, always points in the same direction.

So perhaps the problem is that we are becoming immoral. Whatever foundation was there is crumbling under the weight of cynicism.

A moral society assumes certain things: When we talk to each other we are more or less speaking the same language based on the same basic ethos of our community. Anyone who has tried in the past few years to argue against euthanasia, even among religious people, will know that this commonality is fading fast.

In most of the discussions I had ended I ended up feeling as if I was speaking in a strange tongue. This was not a case of simple disagreement but something far beyond that. It was as if two separate conversations were going on with nothing linking the participants except animosity and confusion.

In other words it was two people coming from different cultures without either side being able to relate to the other.

For those of us of a certain age and persuasion it is akin to feeling lost. I ask myself all the time how did we slip so far into an abyss in which basic morality, a clear definition of what is right and what is wrong, has become so muddled.

When I was growing up, in the 1950s and 60s, there seemed to be some things that were considered wrong: these were premises agreed on by people who were Jewish, Protestant, Catholic and even those thoroughly secular.

The idea of killing someone who was sick would have seemed barbaric. All these were seen as failures against the common good. There was a sense of a community standard that everyone had a stake in. No doubt this could turn judgmental and possibly even cruel but those attitudes were the extreme.

My own view it is the decline of religion and a belief in God. That cannot be the only answer, however.

We grew up in Brooklyn. Their history was typical of the people I grew up with. Our grandparents and parents lived through the Depression. Our fathers fought in the Second World War. In the 1950s they were happy to be alive and enjoyed a success that in the midst of the 1930s or at the height of the war were impossible to imagine.

Those experiences forged comradery. People were pro-life, in the broadest sense of the term because they knew what misery looked like especially those who survived the war. Everywhere there were European refugees; many with numbers on their arms who were simply thankful to not have the state classify them as subhuman and unworthy. And many families, like mine, had relatives that did not come back from the war, a constant reminder of sacrifice for all.

Now we have a society, in general, that has little time for religion. It sees morality as artificial and a hindrance to freedom. We live in a culture that has more gadgets that is causing isolation. We are bombarded with tons of information that is essentially useless for leading a good, moral life.

Try to be serious and someone makes a joke because being serious gets in the way of fun.

Of course, there are many people who are the exception to what I have described and thank God for them.

For those of us who believe the battle against euthanasia is not over, as I do, I write this as a reminder of what we are up against. It is not just a matter of disagreement over an issue. If only it were so.

We can still stop people from being abandoned to death by assisted suicide and euthanasia. We must see each person who opts for the needle as a personal defeat. Nothing is in isolation. A man who is killed with the help of a physician will have sent a message to friends and family that medical murder is fine.

We all have a role to stop this. But the task is monumental. Be ready. Otherwise you will be speaking into the wind.

Charles Lewis is an anti-euthanasia speaker and writer. He writes a column twice a month for Toronto’s Catholic Register newspaper.

Friday, August 19, 2016

The Euthanasia Deception documentary.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) in association with DunnMedia is pleased to announce that the International release of The Euthanasia Deception will be August 29, complete with interactive website and resource materials at:

The fifty-two minute documentary features powerful testimonies from Belgium and Canada, exposes the three main deceptions used by the assisted dying lobby:
  • Euthanasia & assisted suicide are falsely promoted as a form of compassion or mercy.
  • Euthanasia & assisted suicide are falsely promoted as a form of autonomy. 
  • The myth that safeguards can protect people is exposed. 
Purchase The Euthanasia Deception for: 
$30 for 1 copy / $100 for 4 copies or $200 for 10 copies. You can pay (online) or order by emailing: or by calling toll free: 1-877-439-3348. 

For more information go to:

The Euthanasia Deception features; 

  • Professor Tom Mortier, a Belgian man whose depressed mother died by euthanasia,
  • Hendrik Reitsma, whose grand-father died by an assisted death without request in the Netherlands,
  • Dr Catherine Dopchie, a palliative physician in Belgium,
  • Dr Benoit Beusselinck, a Belgian oncologist and palliative care doctor in Leuven Belgium,
  • Carine Brochier, the co-ordinator of the European Institute of Bioethics in Belgium,
  • Professor Etienne Montero, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Namur Belgium,
  • Kristina Hodgetts, a nurse speaks about her experience with assisted death in Canada.
  • Lionel Roosemont, a Belgian man who is the father of a significantly disabled child,
  • Amy Hasbrouck, a lawyer and a disability rights leader in Québec Canada,
  • Mark Pickup, a disability rights activist and public speaker in Alberta Canada,
  • Steven Passmore, a disability rights activist in Ontario Canada,
  • Alex Schadenberg, the International Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
We are all vulnerable at different times in our lives. This documentary is a dire warning for Canada and the rest of the world.

Your donations to EPC enable us to continue our commitment to resisting the acceptance of euthanasia while providing jurisdictions with data to prevent its legalization.

Purchase The Euthanasia Deception by (paying $30 by credit card or paypal) or order by emailing: or calling toll free: 1-877-439-3348.

Thursday, August 18, 2016

Three-Quarters of Submissions Oppose Assisted Suicide in New Zealand.

Euthanasia-Free NZ welcomes an analysis finding that 78% of submitters are opposed to legalising assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia.

In an unprecedented number of unique submissions, more than three-quarters have indicated that they don’t think changing the law is the solution to suffering.

“It’s premature and defeatist to suggest that state-sanctioned suicide is the best the government can offer to address the suffering that some New Zealanders experience,” says Renée Joubert, Executive Officer of Euthanasia-Free NZ. “The causes of suffering are complex and a range of possible solutions need to be examined, including better accessibility to existing physical and psychological care options.”

“The legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia would affect society as a whole, including people who would prefer to die of natural causes. Emotionally vulnerable people could easily feel pressured to request death, making legal assisted suicide the ultimate vehicle for elder and relationship abuse.”

Euthanasia-Free NZ supports the call for David Seymour to withdraw his untimely End of Life Choice Bill from the ballot and allow the current Health Select Committee investigation to run its course.


The cost of legalizing assisted suicide.

This article was written by Vancouver Pharmacist, Christina Alarcon, and published by Impact Ethics on August 18, 2016.

Christina Alarcon
Christina Alarcon questions the social costs of legalizing medical assistance in Dying.

In June 2016, Bill C-14 (the legislation on medical assistance in dying) received royal and assent and a new medical service became available to Canadians. This legislation provides some Canadians (patients) with the legal option to request medical assistance in dying and other Canadians (physicians and nurse practitioners) with the legal authority to provide that assistance. But at what cost?

The financial costs related to medical assistance in dying are relatively inexpensive. Physician’s fees have not yet been determined, but an interim document lists the cost at $440.05 for a general practitioner and $519.08 for a specialist. The drugs themselves will cost about $300. In British Columbia, for example, participating drug stores will charge a $60 to $100 “clinical services” fee for dispensing the oral or IV drug regimen plus a backup- in case the patient fails to die.

The social costs of medical assistance in dying might be higher.

First, much has already been said about safeguards that may never be. Already a BC court case seeks to “strike down” as unconstitutional the provision in C-14 that states a person’s “natural death must be reasonably foreseeable” to qualify for death by lethal injection. In time, treatable chronic illnesses may become eligible for this irreversible “treatment.”

Second, there are concerns about harm to vulnerable persons. For example, in 2004, a British nurse tried to murder four of her elderly patients in a ruthless drive to free up hospital beds. In April 2015, a Czech nurse admitted to killing six patients to decrease her workload. A 2015 Ontario coroner’s report that examined deaths at long-term care facilities, included 13 that were considered homicide in 2013 and 2014. Will legalized killing become the precarious road we take to unburden an overtaxed Canadian healthcare system? I have witnessed first-hand the ways that the Government tries to claw back on medical costs. I worry that medical assistance in dying might offer them an easier and faster way of reducing the cost of healthcare services.

Third, poor quality healthcare might lead some individuals to request assistance in ending their lives prematurely. The Montreal Gazette recently reported that a 52-year-old long-term care patient would rather end his life than live at a facility that he says is treating him inhumanely.

In 2015, the CBC reported that Ontario long-term care system is “a system in crisis,” and that the province’s chief coroner urged the Ontario government to take action against increasing violence in care homes.

Fourth, what will happen to the physicians or nurse practitioners who do the deed and experience guilt or to those who are forced to refer against their conscience? Will the healthcare professions lose their way?

Finally, as a pharmacist, the legalization of medical assistance in dying will impact my professional world. Some of my colleagues have jumped on the medical assistance in dying band-wagon, but I have refused to do so. This is because I’m concerned about the implications for myself, my patients, and society more generally.

My regulatory college, the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia, does not currently require that I dispense the drugs for medical assistance in dying nor that I provide a referral to someone who will. But, it does require that I provide information about this service to patients. Patients rely on me to catch any prescribing errors that could hasten their demise. I work to ensure that patients are not poisoned and that they remain as healthy as possible until their natural death. Often, my elderly patients are alone and have no one to advocate for them. Those who don’t have a family doctor, usually turn to me for medical advice and I wouldn’t want to direct them towards their demise. So, I worry that performing an action contrary to ethic, such as providing information about medical assistance in dying, might desensitize my conscience or corrupt me as a professional.

Further, as the manager of a community pharmacy that services long-term care homes, I know that residents sometimes want to die. I remember one woman asked me how many pills of a particular drug she would need in order to kill herself. I worry that such suicidal wishes are always present in our society.

In a post C-14 Canada there is much at risk. Will we ever get adequate palliative care? Will we continue research into better pain medication? Will Alzheimer’s research become less relevant? Will we forget how to treat chronic conditions that are not terminal in themselves? There may be so much that we will never know or see because we choose to end life prematurely.

The decriminalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia – euphemistically “medical assistance in dying”—may give some patients the semblance of control but at a considerable cost to themselves and society in terms of true well-being or choice.

Cristina Alarcon is a community pharmacist and a clinical instructor of pharmacy practice for the faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of British Columbia.

It is assisted suicide not "medical aid in dying."

Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An assisted suicide question will be on the Colorado election ballot in November. The Colorado Secretary of State recently confirmed that enough signatures were collected for the assisted suicide question to be on the ballot.

The assisted suicide lobby is urging the media to replace the term assisted suicide with "medical aid in dying." 

The term is assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is understood by the public and it is used by institutions such as the American Medical Association which states in its policy on Physician-Assisted Suicide that:
Physician-Assisted Suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physicians role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.
Brandon Rittiman from 9News published a clear report explaining: Why 9News uses the words assisted suicide. Rittiman states:
Supporters of that law have asked 9NEWS not to call it assisted "suicide." They'd rather we call it "medical aid in dying." 
What follows is our explanation of why we are not going to grant that request: 
First off, 9NEWS has no position on this ballot question. Nor do we take the issue lightly. 
We have a duty to tell you about it in simple, direct language. That’s why we’re not going to stop using the word “suicide.” 
Supporters of the measure argue the word “suicide” is too friendly to the opposition because it may make you think of someone who ends their life for no good reason. 
In contrast, the proposed law does require a reason: you’d need to be diagnosed with a terminal illness to get a life-ending prescription. 
But in plain English, that’s still “suicide.” 
Merriam-Webster defines suicide as:
“The act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind.”
The Oxford Dictionary puts it more simply:
“The action of killing oneself intentionally” goes with:
“The intentional taking of one's own life.”
All three definitions have something in common: they don’t depend in any way on the reason a person chooses to end their life, just that they do so on purpose. 
Supporters of this proposal want to change the dictionary definition of suicide. They might succeed one day. 
Changes in the law can end up changing our language. 
But it’s not our job in the news business to change the dictionary. 
It’s our job to use plain language that’s current and accurate-- and that’s what we’ll keep doing.

The New Mexico Supreme Court recently decided that "aid in dying" is assisted suicide, in a case that challenged the New Mexico assisted suicide law.