Following this euthanasia death, I asked for explanations from my superiors in the multi-disciplinary team meeting. In a chorus, the psychologist, the head of service, the nurse director and the cancer specialists explained to me how this death was 'gentle, peaceful and painless' 'a dignified end of life' ('a fitting end') in summary. In a patronising tone, they reminded me that 'in respect of caring, we must be compassionate' that 'the prognosis of Mr R was imminent death' and that 'he would certainly have suffered terribly'. The aplomb of their speeches, the logic, appearing implacable and reasonable, reduced the care team to silence.1. Her cognitive losses. One day she asked me, 'but in reality have [agreed to] euthanize me or not?', like it was an ordinary treatment. She did not seem to remember what it meant. But for the doctors, it was a good thing, she had finally uttered the word 'euthanasia'! This was the first time in years, she had spoken about it spontaneously. To revive a request, the challenge was for her to say 'I want euthanasia' without seeming to propose it to her, as in law, the request must be voluntary and repeated.2. The fuzzy nature of her suffering (no pain or refractory symptoms to be treated). Physically she has no pain and is in remission from cancer. So no incurable disease, death is not imminent. The only solution was to find how her mental suffering was unbearable. When caregivers would sit beside her to talk, she smiled again and asked that we stay close to her. For weeks, she no longer asks for euthanasia. However, when she felt lonely, she'd speak of it again in a pretty vague way.3. The worrying influence of her entourage. The entourage, consisting of friends and some family due to conflict, seemed totally unprepared. They kept harassing caregivers demanding euthanasia for this lady. The Care team felt uncomfortable because they understand that despite the request of the patient there is another reality: that of feeling abandoned because of a lack of solidarity. Her companions were undoubtedly sincere, seeking [her] well-being. But their kindness was devoid of empathy, the perspective necessary for real solidarity. The whole time she was in hospital, the asked for a toothbrush. Instead of a toothbrush, they bring her what they believe to be good according to them: wine, cakes, but never meeting the lady's request. Continue reading

The South Australian Parliament has seen a procession of euthanasia bills in recent years, including the most recent one that MP Bob Such admitted to LifeSiteNews had no chance of passing. House member, Nick Goiran MLC, in April. Continue reading

"Firstly, this is not a symposium about euthanasia. It's a study trip focusing on human rights, suffering and palliative care. We will mention euthanasia but that's not the main goal of the trip. The participants are all professionals working in palliative care. They work every day with patients who suffer pain and death. Our main goal is to visit the death camp where all these atrocities took place. "Secondly, many of the participants don't even support euthanasia. Several of them belong to the Catholic University of Louvain. The main speaker is a renowned researcher in her 80s who was detained in a Japanese concentration camp during the war â�¦ It's obvious there's no link between euthanasia in Belgium and what happened in Auschwitz. The Nazis used the term 'euthanasia' wrongfully." Continue reading

An anonymous group of what is understood to be mainly Belgian students have rallied against their country's child euthanasia laws by taking political action in the current Federal Election. Some members of parliament have claimed that the defacing of candidates' election posters with a sticker saying: "He / she voted for the euthanasia of children" and the attendant 'thumbs down' is vandalism. Other more circumspect MPs have simply called it free speech. Continue reading

"The Age is committed to the encouragement of community debate on euthanasia because we believe it is only through such full and informed means can there be wider understanding and acceptance. However, we remain concerned that changing the laws on voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide could result in possible ambiguities or abuses: euthanasia, as we have said, should not be permitted to become a subtle form of murder. Care and consideration are therefore essential." This is an implicit assumption that a carefully crafted law can protect people from abuse. The editor provides no examples, nor any proofs that such risks can be adequately dealt with. While it is not the role of a newspaper to deal with such matters at length, it is nevertheless the question upon which the grave matter of changing the law hinges.Be that as it may, the sentiments in the latest of such Age articles by Mr Peter Short (Let there be no doubt, I will decide when I die) clearly embody the gentleman's personal views and are therefore worthy of respect. It does, however, rely on a false juxtaposition between physician assisted suicide and palliative care in much the same way as has the discussion about the death of Steve Guest. Continue reading

A year ago the Vermont legislature passed a law almost identical to that in operation in Oregon allowing for assisted suicide. Curiously, however, the Vermont law has a sunset clause on the operational guidelines that will expire after three years leaving assisting suicide in that state without even the pretence of legal oversight.  This report from Continue reading

From Alex Schadenberg's blog:  The following article was written by Redazione West and published on May 19, 2015  Continue reading

The Australian Newspaper is today reporting on the guilty verdict in the trial of a woman who systematically stole the assets of the person she was caring for to fuel a gambling habit and then murdered him to try and cover up.  Continue reading

This report in the UK   reflects on the short, but incredible life of Stephen Sutton and compares his courage and zest for life with recent UK celebrities who want euthanasia or assisted suicide.DailyMail online Continue reading

If we're going to entertain the notion that there exists a 'right to die' then we need to consider such a claim as a claim to a 'human right'.  (After all, we're not now talking about whales or dolphins are we?)  Indeed, occasionally someone will argue exactly that, as Dr. Nitschke has done when stating that he believes that everyone over a certain age should have the 'right to die' at a time and in a manner of their choosing (not further defined by any medical condition or prognosis). For something to be considered as a 'human right', it would need not only to be universally accepted but also universally applied.  We can talk about rights so-called on the basis of discrimination between different jurisdictions (In NSW the law saysâ�¦, but here in SA we're not allowed toâ�¦) but these are not the kind of rights that we're considering here.  We're talking about something that holds true for all of the human family at all times and in all places and euthanasia (or the right to 'choose' euthanasia) just doesn't stack up.Of course, no-one can really prosecute an argument that a 'right-to-die' exists, when you think about it, because we will all die. It's a logical fallacy to claim a right to something that we all share simply because we live! Continue reading