BELGIAN KING SIGNS CHILD EUTHANASIA LAW

Despite the many requests for him to refuse to sign the new and controversial Bill recently passed by Parliament, Belgium’s King Philippe has signed into law the right of minors to seek euthanasia.

 Many organizations and petitions were made to the King to refuse to sign the measure including a petition, launched by an Austrian couple, the parents of a large family which was signed by more than 200,000 people from all over Europe.

In the intervening period between the passing of the new law by the parliament and its signing by King Philippe last Sunday, there was speculation that he may have followed in the footsteps of his uncle, the late King Baudouin, who in the 1990s refused to sign an abortion law.

Article from RT news reprinted below

Belgium’s king has signed into law a controversial bill that will allow for chronically ill children to be euthanized, local media reports. The bill, while widely opposed by religious groups, has broadly support among the public.

Belgian newspapers reported that King Philippe signed the bill into law Sunday, putting to rest weeks of speculation on whether he would approve the law amid strong opposition from Catholic organizations throughout Europe.

The legislation, which grants children the right to request euthanasia if they are “in great pain” and there is no available treatment, makes Belgium the first country in the world where the age of the child is not taken into consideration. Similar legislation exists in the Netherlands, though only for children over the age of 12. In both countries, children are required to receive the consent of parents, doctors and psychiatrists.

The Belgian Catholic Church opposes the law, earlier describing it as a “step too far.” European Catholics also petitioned the king to veto the bill.

In late February, a Spanish conservative lobby delivered more than 200,000 signatures to King Philippe in Brussels, demanding that he not sign the bill. One of the petition’s organizers, Alvaro Zulueta, says more than 5,000 of the signatures came from concerned Belgians, although Italians made up the largest number of respondents, AFP reported.

Although King Philippe’s signature was technically necessary for the bill to pass, it would have been highly unusual for the constitutional monarch not to approve the legislation.

The bill passed the Belgium House of Representatives 86-44 with 12 abstentions February 13, following approval by the Senate last December. Some lawmakers strongly contested the bill, which was proposed by the ruling Socialist Party. The bill was opposed by the Christian Democratic and Flemish parties, which earlier threatened to take the proposal before the European Court of Human Rights.

Belgium became the second country in the world after its neighbor, The Netherlands, to legalize euthanasia following the 2002 Belgium Act on Euthanasia.

Since that time, the number of reported cases of euthanasia in Belgium has reached 1,400 per year.

Critics say it has fundamentally changed Belgium society. In one case in December 2012, Doctors announced that they had euthanized 45-year-old deaf identical twins who were going blind and believed they had nothing left to live for.

Critics said the brothers were not terminally ill nor suffering physical pain, and it took them two years before they found doctors who would perform the procedure. According to Bioedge, a doctor at their local hospital said, “I do not think this was what the legislation meant by 'unbearable suffering.’"

In another case, a 44-year-old woman with chronic anorexia nervosa was euthanized. A 64-year-old woman suffering from chronic depression was also euthanized without informing her relatives. The doctors involved claimed the cases were exceptional, saying all legal obligations were met.

Despite more extreme cases which have gathered worldwide media attention, a recent public survey earlier found that 75 percent of Belgians supported the child euthanasia measure.

Belgium passes euthanasia law for children

The 13th of February 2014 like Dec 7^th 1941 is a day that will go down in infamy. On this day a new and horrifying law on euthanasia for children was passed by the Belgian Parliament. Doctors will be allowed to kill children "under 18" who have been diagnosed as being terminally ill. 

This of course begs the question of how accurate is any diagnosis and in particular one that will allow life and death decisions will be made on the basis of quality of life issues?  Both the existing and the new law appear to be in contravention of the United Nations Disability Convention which in Article 25. f} calls for prevention of ‘discriminatory denial of health care or health services or food and fluids on the basis of disability.’ 

Euthanasia has been legal in Belgium since 2002 but since its enactment has been prohibited for patients below 18 years of age. The newly approved law allows minors to seek euthanasia under certain conditions and to extend the right to request euthanasia to adults with dementia. There is no age limit but the children who are euthanized would have “to possess the capacity of discernment.”

The decision to kill a child will have to be approved by the parents and the physicians in care. In addition the implications of his/her condition must be explained to the child including the fact that euthanasia means being killed.

This expansion of the current law makes it unique in modern Europe and is reminiscent of the Nazi era in Germany.

Many concerns have been expressed in relation to the original law on the basis that the number of euthanasia deaths in Belgium has shown a rapid increase, the 2012 increase being 25%. Recent studies indicate that up to 47% of all assisted deaths are not being reported, 32% of all assisted deaths are being done without request and nurses are killing their patients, even though the law restricts euthanasia to doctors.

--> One can only guess at this stage what the implications of the new law will be and how it will be administered.

Belgian pediatricians said that the law was not necessary as "palliative care teams for children are perfectly capable of achieving pain relief, both in hospital and at home". Many members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe signed a declaration saying that this law "betrays some of the most vulnerable children in Belgium" and "promotes the unacceptable belief that a life can be unworthy of life which challenges the very basis of civilised society". 

Following the adoption of the law by the Belgian Parliament it is now up to King Philippe of the Belgians to sign it into law and appeals are being made to him to refuse to do so. It will be remembered that his uncle the former King Baudouin refused to sign the law that liberalized abortion in 1990 by abdicating for a day.

The Onward March of the Culture of Death: Euthanasia

The Telegraph reported Dec 16^th that a public panel set up at the request of French President François Hollande has urged him to legalise assisted suicide in specific cases. According to a member of the panel the possibility of committing medically assisted suicide is a legitimate right of a patient close to death or suffering from a terminal pathology. 

Other Countries

Euthanasia has been legal in Belgium since 2002 but has been since its enactment prohibited for patients below 18 years of age.  This age limit is now under threat as the Belgian Senate recently voted by 50 votes to 17 to extend euthanasia to children with disabilities. The vote in the Senate followed from a Senate committee vote to allow minors to seek euthanasia under certain conditions

and to extend the right to request euthanasia to adults with dementia. No age limit would be set, but the children who are euthanized would have “to possess the capacity of discernment.”

There is still a possibility of halting the process in the House of Representatives, though pro-life campaigners fear it will become law.

There is also concern that the number of euthanasia deaths in Belgium is increasing rapidly, with an increase of 25% in 2012. Recent studies indicate that up to 47% of all assisted deaths are not being reported, 32% of all assisted deaths are being done without request and nurses are killing their patients, even though the law restricts euthanasia to doctors

Research conducted by the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) in 2010 found that 32% of euthanasia deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium occurred without an explicit request.

The Netherlands also legislated for euthanasia in 2002. The legislation there allows patients experiencing unbearable suffering to request euthanasia, and doctors who carry it out to be free from the threat of prosecution, provided they have followed strict procedures.

According to this law patients must face a future of unbearable, interminable suffering and the request to die must be voluntary and well considered.

Doctor and patient must be convinced there is no other solution

A second medical opinion must be obtained and life must be ended in a medically appropriate way. The patient facing incapacitation may leave a written agreement to their death.

Switzerland has an unusual position on assisted suicide: it is legally condoned and can be performed by non-physicians. Euthanasia however is illegal, but there is an ongoing debate about decriminalization.

Belgian euthanasia law may be expanded to include children and dementia sufferers

We reported last week that euthanasia was out of control in Belgium. We now report that the Justice and Social Affairs Committee of the Belgian Senate on Wednesday Nov. 27th, approved a bill aimed at extending the 2002 euthanasia law to include children and dementia sufferers. The Committee approved the measure by 13 votes to 4 votes against.

     

The bill will now be considered in a plenary session of the Senate and will also be examined and approved by the Chamber (National Assembly). The schedule however has not yet been set.

It should also be noted that there are other bills in the pipeline aimed at extending or facilitating euthanasia for, “persons affected by an incurable cerebral illness” (such as Alzheimers).

The president of the Belgian bishops’ conference joined other faith leaders in criticising the proposed legislation, warning the measure risks “destroying the functioning of society”. See article in the Catholic Herald. 

“We are also opposed to suffering, whether physical or moral, and especially the suffering of children,” Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard, conference president, said in a joint statement with Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders.

“But to suggest minors can decide on their own euthanasia is to falsify their power of judgment and their freedom. To suggest persons with dementia can also be euthanized is to deny their dignity and hand them over to the arbitrary judgment of decision-makers.”

We can also report that on Tuesday evening prior to the approval of the bill by the committee a number of peaceful protesters were harassed by the police .

According to reports the peaceful protestors who came as "Veillerus" ("watchers") to express their disapproval of the new euthanasia in front of the Senate were warned to move on, and some were even arrested.

The protesters posed the following question to the police: 

"Why are you arresting us, the peaceful Watchers? Should not you rather arrest the doctors who admit publicly to infringe the current legislation on euthanasia by not denouncing those who perform it?"   

Euthanasia out of control in Belgium

-->

Dr Peter Saunders in his very informative BLOG looks at the huge increase in euthanasia in Belgium.

This is a critical life and death issue that needs to be highlighted and information about what is occurring must be made available as broadly as possible. We have reprinted the article in full below and it can be accessed on this link.  

It is widely acknowledged that euthanasia is out of control in Belgium: a 500% increase in cases in ten years; one third involuntary; half not reported; euthanasia for blindness, anorexia and botched sex change operations; organ transplant euthanasia; plans to extend euthanasia to children and people with dementia.

One commentator has said that Belgium has ‘leaped head-first off a moral cliff’.

But why Belgium?

One of the reasons seems to be because of the utter failure of regulation of the practice which is exacerbated by serious conflicts of interests. One of the leading euthanasia doctors actually chairs the regulatory committee that is mean to supervise him! Other members of his ‘Commission’ are pro-euthanasia activists.

Dr Tom Mortier (pictured), Leuven University College, and Dr Georges Casteur, General Medical Practitioner, Ostend, lift the lid on Belgium’s euthanasia governance fiasco. Dr Tom Mortier is also a member of the Belgian group - Euthanasie Stop. Parts of this article were previously published by the Belgian Medical Newspaper:

In October 2013, the leading euthanasia doctor in Belgium, Wim Distelmans, received international media attention for the second time. Under his ‘medical’ guidance, he killed 44-year-old Nathan Verhelst, who was born as Nancy. Distelmans, who is an oncologist, said on the Belgian radio that his patient met ‘all’ the conditions of the euthanasia law. Furthermore, Distelmans said that unbearable suffering under the Belgian euthanasia law can be both physical and psychological.

In the case of Nathan Verhelst, euthanasia was done for reasons of psychological suffering. Distelmans said that it is not exceptional for mentally ill patients to be euthanized. When he was asked about the terms of the legislation, Distelmans replied laconically that a second opinion should be sought from two other doctors, and when the patient is not terminally ill, one doctor must be a psychiatrist. Furthermore, a month must pass between the written request for euthanasia and the lethal injection.

However, according to the Belgian euthanasia law, the opinions of the two other doctors are not binding; and the doctor who does the euthanasia can ignore a negative opinion and still give a patient the lethal injection. Basically, in Belgium, a person only needs to find a euthanasia doctor who is willing to kill! The euthanasia doctor only has to have two written reports in the medical record approving euthanasia of the patient and the doctor can ignore any negative reports.

It is striking to see that Distelmans, as the leading euthanasia doctor in Belgium, has been given so much freedom. Distelmans has become a Belgian media icon who continually propagates his ideology through various newspapers and magazines. His institutional background also has enabled him to be honoured as the ‘hero of the Belgian euthanasia law’. He has been the chairman of the Belgian Euthanasia Control and Evaluation Commission (Belgian Commission) for more than ten years.

Furthermore, he has started his own ideological association (Leif) that is giving awards to other members of the Belgian Commission. For instance, the retired Senator Jacinta De Roeck, a pro-euthanasia activist, was recently honoured by Distelmans with a ‘lifetime achievement award’, which is ironic as already more than 8000 euthanasia cases have been registered in Belgium since 2002.

As the chairman of the Belgian Commission, Distelmans is ‘controlling’ his euthanasia law, while continuing to administer lethal injections after ‘consulting’ with his close colleagues. Therefore, we strongly question whether independent consultations, a legal requirement of the law, are actually occurring during these so-called medical consultations. Is it not a conflict of interest when Distelmans declares euthanasia cases performed by himself to the Belgian Commission when he is also the chairman and when the members of the Belgian Commission include pro-euthanasia activists like Jacinta De Roeck and Jacqueline Herremans?

Furthermore, there will never be a two-thirds majority to send a case to a judge because the members of the Belgian Commission and its chairman are in a conflict of interest!

It appears that Distelmans has become both the judge and the executioner.

If the euthanasia law in Belgium has taught us anything, it is that in Belgium the euthanasia doctors have been given all of the power in contrast to the patients who are given lethal injections!

Dr Saunders has also indicated that his Blog Post isSourced both from Tom Mortier and Alex Schadenberg’s blog

Houston hospital starving and dehydrating patient against family's wishes

Texas Right to Life has reported on a horrific story which needs to be widely publicised.
In view of the serious nature of the issue we have reprinted the story in full below however the following is a direct link to the report

A hospital is now actively killing a patient whose family called me at the 11th hour yesterday, pleading to save their father's life.

Despite the family's desperation to protect their father’s life, and everything Texas Right to Life did for them, the hospital's death panel declared his life futile and moved with steps to kill him.

I could not protect him, and I want to tell you what happened.

His family calls him Willie.

A few weeks ago, he was making plans to travel with his family for a vacation in Europe, but he had chest pains and went to the hospital to check what's wrong. To his surprise, they discovered pneumonia and, shockingly, leukemia.

His doctors suggested surgery and chemo.  Willie didn't want to die.  Before sedation, his daughter told me that he looked lovingly into her eyes and said, "Fight for me, baby; I ain't done living."

His family -- armed with a medical power of attorney -- obeyed his wishes and told the doctors to continue his medical care and treatment.

But his doctors disagreed. They had other plans.

They formed a committee under Texas law, which is essentially the same death panel laws found in Obamacare, to decide whether Willie should continue living in their hospital.

This death panel of hospital staff and a few doctors met at the hospital in northwest Houston and decided that Willie's life was no longer worth living and told the family their decision. The panelists told Willie’s family that if they didn't agree with their decision, then to move him out of their hospital within ten days or they would pull the plug.

The family reached out to a social worker in the hospital to facilitate transfer to another facility - a facility that would care for Willie.  Willie's family would pay the transfer costs and other expenses for the healthcare the doctors were denying to him, on top of the ample insurance he had to cover his costs.

The social worker told them that she would try to find a location, and the family had no reason to believe otherwise.

But as the 10-day deadline approached, she told them that no facility would accept their father and there was nothing else that she could do.

When they heard her words, the family was silent. They couldn't even form words to express their unbelief and grief. Willie had insurance, after all, why would no one want to accept him?

Willie's family told me how they quickly realized the social worker had painted a picture of their father that no hospital wants: one who had no hope of meaningful recovery, one whose quality of life was gone, one with no dignity due to his illness and disability.

That's when they called Texas Right to Life.

My team and I spoke with many attorneys to take this case.  We even spoke with politicians to pull strings to save Willie's life. All of them were happy to help Willie, but neither the law nor time was on their side.

I even sent a message to a CEO of a hospital with a religious-sounding name to accept him.  No room at the inn.

Texas failed Willie. Our culture failed Willie.

With his family crying beside him at 5pm yesterday, the hospital stopped trying to heal Willie and then turned to try to kill him.

The family was helpless as they watched one by one, each treatment be stopped or withdrawn.

Although Willie breathed on his own through the night, he is being dehydrated and starved to death completely against the family's desire to keep him alive.

Because he hasn't been fed or given water, his heart rate is dangerously low. After he breathed steadily last night, the hospital discussed hospice with the family. Now however, the facility is letting Willie languish while he awaits his transfer to hospice.

Friend, you need to know, as a Pro-Lifer, where our battleground is.  Yesterday we fought in a hospital, the very place we used to trust to save lives.

Please pray for Willie and for his family.

Falconer report on euthanasia 'biased and flawed'.

Pro-life organisations in the UK have roundly condemned the Falconer report as being biased and flawed.
Lord Falconer's report on assisted suicide is worthless, according to the Society for the protection of unborn children. See John Smeaton's BLOG
The report which was prepared according to SPUC,

"by a self-styled commission funded by pro-death activists amounts to a renewed attack on the legal status of disabled and elderly people. The report's conclusions, due to be published in full tomorrow, were summarised earlier this week by Lord Falconer in the Telegraph newspaper.
The commission has been widely discredited as stacked with supporters of assisted suicide. Over 40 organisations, including the British Medical Association (BMA), refused to give evidence to Lord Falconer's "death-for-the-disabled" group."

Paul Tully, SPUC Pro-Life's general secretary, commented:

"Predictably, Lord Falconer's report calls for Parliament to change the law to allow assisted suicide. His group was set up following Parliament's repeated rejections of attempts by Lord Falconer and his ilk to change the law. This is part of a thoroughly nasty strategy to convince the public that many disabled people want to die - and that they are sensible to want to die. Lord Falconer's cooking-up of a dodgy dossier via a stacked panel shows the lengths to which the assisted suicide lobby will go.

They seek to create a two-tier system: people who deserve a right to life, and those who maybe don't. In fact, this shabby exercise was bankrolled by Sir Terry Pratchett, a patron of Dignity in Dying, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. "Disabled people are justifiably frightened when the protection the law gives them against pressure to end their lives is attacked like this. The moves to undermine their right to life are often accentuated by fawning, uncritical media coverage. The assisted suicide lobby represents a mentality of aversion to people who suffer, and it represents celebrities who have more money than sensitivity. We encourage people to show solidarity with disabled people by dismissing out-of-hand Lord Falconer's thinly-disguised propaganda."

Dr Peter Saunders of Care not Killing in a strong statement said:

This investigation was unnecessary, biased and lacking in transparency and its report is seriously flawed. It is being spun as a comprehensive, objective and independent review into this complicated issue. It is anything but.

This private commission was sponsored by Dignity in Dying, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, and financed by one of their patrons, with panel members being handpicked by Lord Falconer, a leading advocate of changing the law.

Nine of its eleven members were known backers of assisted suicide with a strong ideological vested interest in this as the outcome. Those with a differing view including representatives from the major disability rights organisations and doctors groups were not invited to join the Commission. The overt bias in the structure of the commission is why over 40 organisations including the British Medical Association and many individuals boycotted the inquiry.

Its terms of reference were drafted to ensure that the final report backed a change in the law and ruled out maintaining the status quo. In the commission’s own words they were to, ‘investigate the circumstances under which it should be possible for people to be assisted to die; recommend what system, if any, should exist to allow people to be, assisted to die; identify who should be entitled to be assisted to die and recommend what changes in the law, if any, should be introduced’.

What the commission is proposing is a less safe version of the highly controversial Oregon law, which sees the terminally ill offered drugs to kill themselves, but not expensive life saving and life extending drugs. It’s so-called ‘proposed safeguards’ are paper-thin and have already been rejected three times in the last six years by British Parliaments. These recommendations if implemented will place vulnerable people under increased pressure to end their lives so as not to be a burden on others. This pressure can be especially intense at a time of economic recession when families and the health service are already feeling the pinch. The so-called right to die can so easily become the duty to die.

Forum 2011 on End of Life issues in Ireland

The Forum 2011 on End of Life in Ireland, held in Dublin on 12 October, was the culmination of two years of public consultation and meetings.   During this meeting, the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, launched a new initiative called ‘Think Ahead’, which is aimed at encouraging people to write down arrangements and decisions with regard to their future life and health – a type of ‘Advance Care Directive’?    

(For further information on the Forum in general please see my previous blogs on the subject, e.g., 14 September 2011).

One contributor to the proceedings was a woman, three of whose children had been stillborn.  The theme of her talk was ‘Let us remember how once we dealt with death’, and she spoke of the way in which mothers, and their babies who died before, during or shortly after birth, were treated in maternity hospitals in the not too distant past.   She spoke, also, of the attitude of many – albeit not being intentionally hurtful – towards mothers, like herself, who had lost their babies.   Some people, thinking they were being helpful, would sympathise with her that she had not been able to hold her babies in her arms, as the hospital staff would spirit them away secretly and quietly.   The lady made a lovely statement about this.  She said that she did indeed hold her babies – ‘I held them in my womb for nine months.’  

Four workshop sessions were held during the afternoon.   One of these, ‘The Medicalisation of Dying’, was led by Professor Aidan Halligan, a former Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England.    In his introductory remarks, Professor Halligan spoke of the necessity to be personally present to patients – for instance, to hold their hands, to listen to what they had to say, rather than treating them as a number on a list.  A good doctor helps people to rediscover their lost values, and looks after someone because of who they are, with no discrimination.  ‘Do the right thing well on a difficult day’, Professor Halligan said.   A worrying note arose from his presentation, however, when he spoke of a project for the homeless in London that used the ‘Liverpool Care Pathway’ in its operation.   John Smeaton has written extensively on this  rather suspect programme.

Except for some implications arising from the references that were made to the advantages of ‘Advance Care Directives’, the general tone of the day appeared to be a positive one.    

However, when a query on assisted suicide was put by one of the attendees, the Chairman of the National Council of the Forum on End of Life, Mrs. Justice McGuinness (she chaired the meeting) replied that as assisted suicide is illegal in Ireland it is the policy of the Forum not to discuss the subject.    We sincerely hope that it will remain that way. 

Report on two European Marches for Life "Berlin" and "Zurich"

Two "Marches for Life" took place in Europe last Saturday September 17^th. One in Berlin and one in Zurich

The Berlin March for Life which lasted 2.5 hours commenced with a demonstration outside the Office of the Federal Chancellor and made its way Cathédrale Ste Hedwige (culte oecuménique)

Many people from all over Germany and other European countries gathered for the annual march for life to remember the aborted children and the innumerable women, men, and families who suffer from an abortion.

The Berlin march for life organisers called on German society and politicians to take action to really prevent and avoid abortion and to improve assistance for unplanned pregnant parents in need. They also expressed deep concerned about the silent increase of acceptance of euthanasia in Europe, as it is already being practiced again in some countries.

The march for life was organized by Bundesverband Lebensrecht, currently an alliance of  14 organizations and initiatives which focuses on different pro-life areas. The march was supported by several members of the German parliament and many people from different organizations and churches.

The Zurich event Marche pour la Vie  (Marsch für s’Läbe) met at Helvetiaplatz. 

The following are extracts from a report on the event by Mary Langlois who attended the event

“[…] This is truly an international battle, and prolifers all speak the same language. We listened to a professional social worker with achondroplasia, and a mother with adopted Down’s syndrome children, both telling us that life matters. It was evident that they were happy, fulfilled women, not tragic figures. The Down’s children played and smiled while their mother spoke, the social worker radiated confidence and joy. Beautiful posters of preborn children reminded us of the innocent victims of the unspeakable injustice of abortion. […]”

Mary also writes that the march attracted a group of angry pro-abortion protestors.

“Although the anti-life protesters were out-numbered by prolifers at least ten-to-one, police had to take measures to maintain order, a few times resorting to water hoses and tear gas, because protesters were entering the plaza where participants gathered, and behaving in a threatening way. Some carried crosses emblazoned with disrespectful slogans and items. I won’t dignify them by going into detail. Prolifers seemed unconcerned, and were certainly undeterred.”

The march according to Mary 

"wound through the streets of downtown Zurich for about two hours, with trams, buses, and cars detoured or stopped to make way. Shoppers, bystanders, and people  in cafes looked on, many showing subtle signs of support by waving a little or smiling, some frowning, some merely curious. We were flanked by vigilant police officers, young men from the prolife side helping with security, and a wonderful Brazilian-style music group bringing up the rear who provided an energizing drum beat that inspired us as we went along the route.

The March was inspiring and exciting. There is a real energy in Europe for life and family. Pope Benedict is defending European Catholic heritage, and people of all creeds are fighting back against the culture of death. We are not separated by language or culture. We are united in this cause.”

Both events were arranged to raise public awareness of the injustice of abortion and to offer information and help to people who have suffered from the consequences of abortion. The Zurich march was also held with the intention of proposing a new ban on abortion

SPUC annual conference

The SPUC annual conference which took place last weekend provided an excellent insight into the current state of the pro-life movement both in the UK and internationally. 

The presentations included an insightful talk by Fiorella Nash on maternal mortality, an in-depth look at sex education in schools by Antonia Tully and a particularly noteworthy address by Bobby Schindler in which he spoke of his family's battle to keep his sister, Terri Schiavo, alive after a court ruled that her nutrition and hydration be withdrawn. Other aspects of the conference included a wonderful presentation by SPUC youth members, the launching of the new SPUC talk for schools, a variety of workshops and the awarding of a pro-life award to Peter Saunders of Christian Medical Fellowship who gave a presentation on "How the pro-euthanasia lobby works".

We concentrate today on Bobby Schlindler's address but will return to some of the other topics in future BLOGS

Bobby told the conference his sister's death was the "Roe v Wade of the euthanasia movement in the United States." Bobby talked of his family's battle to keep Terri alive after a court ruled that her food and hydration be withdrawn back in 2000..

Bobby told the meeting that in the first 2 years following her collapse Terri's medical records showed that her rehabilitation treatment was effective and she was starting to speak. "We were very hopeful about these tiny steps," he recalled.

Things took a turn for the worse after a medical malpractice lawsuit in 1992 in which Terri was awarded $1.5m for her treatment and her husband Michael was awarded $600,000. According to Bobby it was after this ruling and receiving the monies that things changed for Terri: the relationship between Terri's husband Michael and the Schindler family broke down and all communications stopped in 1993.

Shortly after this the family learned Michael had requested nurses not to provide Terri with antiobiotics for an infection. When they refused he moved her to another facility with the same request. Those nurses also refused. By 1998 he had engaged a pro-euthanasia attorney and the family received a letter stating that they would seek to have Terri's food and fluids removed and that Terri had wanted this. In 1999 legislation was changed in the state to define food and fluids as medical treatment.

Terri's case went to trial in 2000 and the judge ruled in favour of Michael Schiavo despite the serious questions about her living will or that Michael was set to inherit the money from her death. Bobby said:

"I'm still to this day amazed at the publicity Terri's case received specifically because it was already happening every day. Before the case Terri was very much alive, but the media protrayed her as someone whose quality of life was so poor that this action was in her best interests. Even medics were surprised at how responsive she was despite being neglected for so long. My sister wasn't brain dead. They call this an end of life issue but it isn't. Terri was very much alive. It became an end of life discussion when she wasn't at the end of her life."

According to Bobby what happened to Terri is now ordinary practice across America. It has even been argued that the definition of articifical feeding should be expanded to include more than a feeding tube but also spoon-feeding and that even bringing a tray to patients as diet must receive medical approval. Bobby told the conference he estimates hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people are now directly affected by the sort of thing that happened to Terri, and that's not even looking at terminal sedation cases or other ways of putting people to death. Bobby said:

"We now decide who lives and who dies on a quality of life judgement."

He also said some vulnerable people are now being described as 'non-persons' by many academics in the States. He added:

"The biggest thing we're up against is apathy, people don't care until it happens to someone they know."

He also said the pro-euthanasia lobby is now very powerful and has the backing of a media willing to distort the truth and a growing insensitivity towards people like my Terri, compounded by the language people use to refer to the vulnerable. Language like 'vegetable' should be abolished from our vocabulary, he said, as it serves no purpose but it's entrenched in our mentality and is validated by our mainstream media.

Bobby ended by recalling the experience of his family as they watched over Terri in her final weeks. He said:

"Our family had to watch Terri die of dehydration, watch her deteriorate."

When people ask what she looked like at that time he says he can only compare her to victims of Auschwitz. Her appearance, he said, was horrific. She had blood pouring in her eyes in the last days. It was disturbing to watch and not a peaceful way to die. And for Bobby the most heart wrenching thing was watching my parents.
To compound the family's grief George Philos, Michael's attorney, gave a press conference after Terri's death and said she'd never looked so beautiful as in the last week of her death.

Since Terri's death her family has formed the Life and Hope Network to help other families in the same situation in the US and around the world.

'End of Life' Issues, Conference: 'Death in Ireland"

On a number of previous occasions I have blogged (most recently on 19 May 2011) about the Forum on End of Life in Ireland.   (The Irish version for this title is given as Bás in Éireann [sic] i.e. ‘Death in Ireland’.    Should we be worried?)

To re-cap - the Forum on End of Life in Ireland has organised ‘Forum 2011’ – with the key theme being ‘Resilience’ – and the event will take place on Wednesday, 12 October next, at Croke Park, Dublin, from 10 am to 4 pm.

The Chair for the day will be Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuiness and the guest speaker will be the Taoiseach, (Irish Prime Minister) Enda Kenny.  

Four workshops will be held during the course of the day, as follows: Carers; Preparing the Public; Spiritual and Psychological Support; The Medicalisation of Dying.

The deadline for registration at the event, which is organised in association with the Irish Times newspaper and the Irish Hospice Foundation, is Monday, 3 October, and details and bookings may be sought at www.endoflife.ie

In the light of recent and ongoing debate about the sacredness of all human life we suggest that attendance at this meeting is something that as many as possible should contemplate.

Could this be India's Terry Schiavo Case?

The London Independent newspaper (27 January 2011) carried an extraordinary story about a nurse who has been lying in bed for thirty-eight years in an Indian hospital.   In 1973, the nurse, Aruna Shanbang, was subjected to an horrendous attack that left her brain-damaged, and she has since then been fed on a liquid diet.   Prior to her having been attacked she had worked at the hospital, and she is looked on with great affection by the hospital authorities.   However, the author of a book written about her case seeks to have the Supreme Court order that Aruna continue to be fed by hospital staff quashed, because her condition ‘means she does not have the standard of life guaranteed by the Indian constitution.’

In her petition to the court, the author of the book requests that instructions be issued ‘to forthwith ensure that no food is fed’ to Aruna.    The petition continues: ‘This vegetative existence devoid of any human dignity is not life at all and putting mashed food in her mouth only amounts to violation of human dignity.’ 

 It appears that none of Aruna’s family or friends is willing to come forward to defend her.

To their credit, however, the officials at the hospital where she is being cared for have denounced the claims of the writer, insisting that their patient is not in ‘as dire condition as the writer suggests.  …  She means a lot to KEM [the hospital in question].  She is on a liquid diet, and loves listening to music.  We have never subjected her to intravenous food or fed her via a tube.  When those looking after her do not have a problem, I don’t understand why a party who has nothing to do with her needs to worry.  We have no moral right to terminate her life.  I am against euthanasia for Shanbang.’  

Pray that the hospital authorities will succeed in their efforts to care for Aruna.

Belgian proposal for euthanasia of dementia sufferers and minors

The European institute of Bioethics reports on two new initiatives to expand the culture of death in Belguim. 

Three members of the Belgian House of Representatives (Myriam Vanlerberghe, Renaat Landuyt and Maya Detiège) according to the report, have tabled draft legislation for euthanizing people suffering from dementia.

The authors start from the observation that the Act of May 28, 2002 on euthanasia does not apply to people with dementia even if they have drafted an advance directive while still capable of doing so.

The authors argue that dementia is generally progressive and suggest that anyone, even if already ill, could write an advance directive nominating the stage at which his/her life may be terminated without ant limitation as to timescale. These people may therefore be euthanized, even if completely unable to consent at the time of euthanasia (confusion, unconsciousness), and even if the forward declaration was written many years before.

The authors also attack conscientious objection by suggesting that if the doctor refuses to perform euthanasia, there would be an obligation to transfer the case to a doctor who will implement the written request.

The same authors have also filed October 28, 2010 a bill on euthanasia of minors.

They propose that a minor with the faculty of discernment (12 years) should be able to request euthanasia under the same conditions as an adult. The decision would be made in consultation with parents and a medical team comprising at least the attending physician, nurse practitioner, a child psychologist or psychiatrist and a social worker.

 If the minor has no power of discernment, parents could make the request for euthanasia themselves.

In case of premature birth it is proposed that the decision could be taken by the parents in consultation with a small medical team.

Nitsche euthanasia lecture cancelled

It was announced in the media recently that Dr Philip Nitschke was to hold a ‘DIT Euthanasia workshop’ in Dublin on 19 March next. An Australian, Dr Nitschke is a well-known campaigner for euthanasia, and he heads up an organisation called ‘Exit International’ which assists people to commit suicide. The ‘event’ was advertised as taking place at a Health Board Executive (HSE)-funded venue in central Dublin – and, as well as the fact that the HSE was facilitating such a gathering, the HSE, in so doing, was also using tax-payers’ money to promote euthanasia.

Many organizations wrote to the HSE, to the Chief Executive of the HSE, and to the Irish Medicines Board about the proposed event, and voiced their objections to its taking place. We are glad to report that, following the representations from the various organizations, the so-called ‘workshop’ will not now be held at the planned venue. The situation, however, will be closely monitored.

Niamh Uí Bhriain, of the Life Institute one of the organizations that raised objections to Dr Nitsche's visit, said:

‘This objectionable “workshop” comes at a time when there is a huge push by pro-euthanasia activists worldwide to introduce the legal killing of the elderly, the sick and the vulnerable. Philip Nitschke is a most controversial figure, and he stands accused of exploiting people with mental illness who commit suicide under his guidance when what they need is professional help and understanding. This workshop is illegal, deeply disturbing. We’re currently investigating the new venue proposed for the workshop.’

Readers will recall a similar event – in which the HSE was also involved – that nearly took place in Cork early last year, when Professor Len Doyal was ready to promote euthanasia in Ireland. See my blogs for 29 March 2009, 13 April 2009

This is a sinister development and the fact that this is now the second time such an event has been arranged is causing significant concern. The question of why the HSE persists in arranging such anti life lectures must therefore be asked, and straight answers must be given to this question.

Ethics of Care

I have been sent word about a one-day conference being held at London Metropolitan University entitled Ethics of Care. Speakers include the notorious Mary Warnock, medical experts in the field such as Philip Howard and many others. For more information and to download a booking form, check out their website.

h/t Monstrous Regiment of Women

Care not Killing

h/t to In Hoc Signo Vinces for this interview of Baroness Findlay on why euthanasia should not be legalised. She provides some excellent arguments, many based upon her experience in palliative care.

Assisted Suicide Symposium

The Second International Symposium on Assisted Suicide, under the co-sponsorship of Terri’s Foundation (instituted in memory of Terri Schindler Schiavo), took place at the National Convention Center in Virginia, USA, from May 29 – 30. Many well-known international speakers, including Alison Davis, Colin Harte, Wesley J. Smith, and others, addressed the delegates.

The organisers say that the holding of the Symposium is vital at this time, particularly when a growing number of experts in the USA are warning of the impending dangers of a President Obama ‘health care’ plan. One of the speakers, Dr Mostert recently wrote an article entitled: ‘Is Obama the First Pro-Euthanasia President?’

Euthanasia lecture cancelled

RTE news report that the controversial public lecture on euthanasia which was to be delivered at Cork University Hospital (CUH) on Holy Thursday by guest speaker Prof Len Doyal (See previous BLOG) was cancelled minutes after it began when a group of protestors disrupted it. Witnesses report that at the commencement of the lecture a group of over 20 people stood up and began shouting and that some began to pray. Professor Doyal was also accused of being a murderer. The lecture entitled 'Why Euthanaia should be legalised'was cancelled on public safety grounds.

Len Doyal who is Emeritus Professor of Medical Ethics at Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary, University of London and a member of the BMA Ethics Committee, is an open proponent of both voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. Professor Doyal had to be escorted from the lecture theatre at Cork University Hospital by security staff.

Professor Doyal was reported in a medical news today article in 2006 as saying "Some supporters of euthanasia remain silent about non-voluntary euthanasia, presumably because they believe that focusing on voluntary euthanasia offers a better chance of legalisation. Yet in doing so, they ignore important arguments for their own position." He continued "If doctors are now allowed control - and should be able to exert even more control over - the deaths of severely incompetent patients, why should competent patients not be able to control the circumstances of their own deaths if this is what they wish? "Proponents of voluntary euthanasia should support non-voluntary euthanasia under appropriate circumstances and with proper regulation”.

Euthanasia is contrary to natural law, contrary to Irish law and infringes the 5th commandment “Thou shalt not kill”.

Serious questions arise as to why the ethics committee in a teaching hospital decided to arrange a lecture on the subject of euthanasia at all but more particularly the arrangement of a one sided presentation without even the balance of have an alternative viewpoint.

Into the Sucide Room

H/t to Witness to Love for this news report The whole film is obviously intended to present a positive picture of assisted suicide, with close-ups of a candle in a corner and the bed for the suicide to lie on made up with colourful linen. However, it still makes chilling viewing and I agree with Witness that the suicide assistant's smile is 'eerily revealing'. It is appalling to imagine that there are campaigners in Britain and across Europe trying to legalise this appalling trade in despair. That is what it is. Organisations that help people commit suicide thrive on despair and a cosy-looking room cannot distract attention from that fact.

A Doctor Writes

Idle Speculations carries a letter published in The Times of London penned by Baroness Findlay, a member of the House of Lords and a professor. However, she writes the letter from the perspective of a doctor commenting 'from the coal face' about assisted suicide.

Assisted suicide is fine in a perfect world. We don't live (or die) in one

A doctor's job is to treat the sick and relieve pain. That cannot be squared with helping the terminally ill to end their lives