This article was published on the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network (CBC) website By Jennifer Lahl, CBC President - October 5, 2015.It is with heavy hearts that we at the CBC report that Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law ABx2 15. California becomes the fifth state to allow physician assisted suicide after Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Vermont. Continue reading

Correctly termed either euthanasia or assisted suicide, The Ethics Centre based in Sydney covered both sides of the debate. The case against is reproduced here with permission. At the Festival of Dangerous Ideas, The Ethics Centre's interactive art installation asked, what do you wish we could talk more about? Many people were interested in the right to die. Nigel Biggar believes passing assisted suicide legislation will give us more than we bargained for.Let's be frank. There are dreadful ways of dying. For example, those who suffer from motorneurone disease might have to face the prospect of suffocating to death. People with obstructive tumours may spend their last days vomiting their own faeces.But it's not only the dying who have reason to fear. Some of the living are burdened with lives that are terribly restricted and isolated. These include Alzheimer's patients, multiple sclerosis sufferers, quadriplegics, the conscious but paralysed and voiceless, the elderly and bereaved facing lonely decline... The list goes on.Is human life under such conditions really worth perseverance? Surely compassion obliges the law to let us seek a swift and efficient escape through help in killing ourselves (assisted suicide) or someone else killing us at our request (voluntary euthanasia)?Besides, don't we have a right to autonomy? After all, an individual's life is his own. Who is better placed to decide when it has become intolerable?This argument echoes throughout the Western world. It was championed by The Economist this past June and won ground in the Netherlands and Belgium, plus U.S. states of Oregon, Washington, Vermont and - as of yesterday - California.It's not enough to oppose forms of euthanasia by simply shouting, "All human life is sacred and inviolable". Only pacifists really believe that - the rest of us make exceptions. Even the law has long permitted killing in proportionate self-defence.Nevertheless, a cogent case can be made against making assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia legal.If the law were to allow competent adults absolute autonomy over their own lives, it would have to permit consensual vivisection and killing. In other words, if a person consented to being mutilated and killed the law would have no objection.In its eyes the individual would be master of their own life. If they choose to spend it in what other people consider a macabre fashion it would be their business and their's alone. Continue reading

The Irish Times is reporting today that Irish Independent MP, John Halligan, plans to table his assisted suicide bill in the Dáil (parliament) 'within weeks'.The threat of an attempt at legalising assisted suicide has been building for some time. The first significant attempt at law reform came via a Court case brought by MS sufferer, Marie Fleming who was seeking assurances that her husband, Tom Curran, would not be prosecuted if he assisted her in her suicide, claiming that her disability rendered her unable to act herself and that, therefore, she was being discriminated against under the Irish Constitution. It was very similarr to the successful British Court case of fellow MS sufferer, Debbie Purdy in 2009 that forced the UK Public Prosecutor to issue guidelines for the circumstances under which an accompanying relative or friend to Dignitas in Zurich would not face the law.Marie Fleming's case failed on appeal.In April this year, Gail O'Rorke was tried in the Irish criminal court and found not guilty of an offence against the Irish laws prohibiting assisted suicide in relation to another MS sufferer, Bernadette Forde.In June this year, Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick, director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International held a conference in Dublin that included the timely launch of HOPE Ireland, in preparation for the pending debate. Fitzpatrick said recently: "We must oppose legalising euthanasia/assisted suicide for reasons of the terrible consequences that have come where laws have been passed. Even a minimal scratch at the surface reveals all the dangers inherent in such laws. The evidence is overwhelming and that is where the 'big' conversation needs to be honest."John Halligan seems to be in agreement, telling the Irish Times that we need a, "dignified, compassionate and thoughtful debate". Continue reading

by Paul Russell: "When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws." G.K. Chesterton.Such are the consequences of breaking down the prohibitions on killing and assisting in suicide.Western democracies seem more and more these days to have forgotten that the big statute laws such as the prohibitions on homicide are really about the state codifying immutable truths as custodians of genuine, equal and inalienable rights. The principle error in places like The Netherlands and Belgium with euthanasia was the acceptance of the false principle that, in all things, the state is a law unto itself; that it can define and redefine the nature of things by its own will.There are always consequences. When we change from 'do not kill' to 'only kill in some circumstances' we necessarily need to define those circumstances; the 'small laws'. These 'small laws' lack the precision of the 'big laws'. In terms of euthanasia and assisted suicide, they rely on subjective assessment. Whereas the 'big laws' are clear and allow for our courts to assess the circumstances, attendant penalties and the application of mercy, the 'small laws' such as who might qualify for state sanctioned death, are really little more than unenforceable guidelines.The moral code prohibiting homicide - which the law had previously endorsed and enforced - is breached. The 'small laws' that follow are entirely consequential and support Chesterton's hypothesis. Indeed, it can be observed that the necessity of these consequential 'small laws' can be taken as a retrospective proof that the 'big law' was, itself, a guarantee of a freedom or duty that existed prior to the state and which the state should never have messed with.Difficult if not impossible to enforce, these new 'small laws' render the 'big law' increasingly impotent in its original principles of protecting citizens from harm. In The Netherlands, successive court judgements from the 1980s preceded the 2002 legislation and 'small laws' continue to follow on in one form or another.In Belgium, the public prosecutor's role in pursing homicides is deeply compromised in respect to euthanasia. That office has been largely neutered; the regulatory role having been passed to a commission who assesses reports on each euthanasia deaths properly notified. In more than a decade, no cases have been referred for possible prosecution. The growing list of publicised euthanasia cases suggest that there have been many where further scrutiny should have been applied. That some doctors don't report their cases at all is also well known. Even these flimsy guidelines are being deliberately flaunted without comment and without redress.Having trampled over the logical moral boundary against killing, more 'small laws' become inevitable. Again, Belgium springs easily to mind having extended its 2002 laws in 2013 to include euthanasia for minors and having also expanded the concept of the original law to now include euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.What began as a response, albeit a dubious one, to the question of suffering at the end-of-life, has become a right. The state, having created a right has a duty to provide the means. Initially this duty created no obligation on anyone except the state; the person would request euthanasia voluntarily and there was no obligation on any doctor to agree. Medical professionals were free to decline on grounds of conscience and/or on other grounds.That defence - the right to refuse or to dissent - is now also under serious threat in a number of places. Once the euthanasia monster is unshackled from the 'big laws' it feeds voraciously, gnawing away on the 'small laws' until it gains enough strength and momentum to tackle other 'big laws'.Conscientious objection is perhaps the last such domino to fall. Though not a 'big law' itself, in terms of formal statutes, it is a hitherto undisturbed 'big principle'. If euthanasia is a right, then there is logic in its imposition.This may come to a head soon in both Belgium and The Netherlands via a legal stouche following the suicide death in Holland of Milou de Moor after her approval for euthanasia was withdrawn. Her parents have said that they will sue her GP, who pressed for the euthanasia request to be stopped, and the Belgian hospital who agreed to reverse their earlier decision to proceed. In Canada, the recourse to conscience has fallen even before the breach of the 'big law' on homicide comes into force. The Quebec Government recently made it clear that they will expect the co-operation of all doctors in their coming euthanasia regime, even going so far as to threaten the loss of funding for agencies that refuse to comply.We break with the 'big laws' at our ultimate peril. 'Small laws' carry little force and are easily eroded of all potency overtime. This is one instance where 'big' is definitely 'better'.see also:Quebec tells doctors they will be made to practice euthanasiaFamily to sue over withdrawal of euthanasia  Continue reading

This article was published by OneNewsNow on September 25, 2015. by Alex SchadenbergA Canadian province is getting tough with medical personnel who are opposed to doctor-assisted suicide. Continue reading

A complicated set of circumstances lead to the approval, over a three year period, of euthanasia for Dutch resident, Milou de Moor who suffered from Lupus; a debilitating autoimmune disease. Treated in Belgium at the University Hospital in Ghent, de Moor was to be euthanased by her neurologist of six years.However, her Dutch general practitioner, who had not been required to approve the euthanasia, intervened and, after discussing his or her reservations with the Ghent Hospital ethics committee, the approval for her euthanasia was formally withdrawn. On hearing the news, de Moor then took her own life.According to reports, the intervention at this point of de Moor's GP was entirely unexpected; especially considering that he or she had been virtually silent on the matter over the preceding three years and had seemed to support the process.The Dutch and Belgian laws presuppose the involvement of the persons GP, but they do not mandate it. De Moor's family are now said to be considering legal action against the GP and the Ghent hospital.There's much in this sad situation that we do not know. The GP concerned has not spoken publicly and is on leave.According to the media, de Moor's family wants to take action to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. One can understand their grief. But what, precisely, would a successful law suit prevent?This is a very serious question. On the face of it, perhaps the remedy being sought is to prevent any medical professional from intervening in a euthanasia process once initiated. If that is the case, any remaining sense of obligation of the state to protect its citizens will have been all but obliterated. Any vestige of process, be it genuine or otherwise, would become a rubber stamp; medical judgement and even any requirement of second or third opinions will become meaningless. The Low Countries will have reached euthanasia on demand.Over all of that, as I've pointed out before, the damage to the culture can be seen in this false dichotomy that only offers euthanasia or suicide as solutions. See also:SBS Dateline special report: Allow me to dieThe 'end of the therapeutic path': supporting suicide in disguise Continue reading

by Paul RussellThe relationship between suicide and the double sided spectre of euthanasia and assisted suicide is complex. Though complex, it is paradoxically easily understood at first glance given that all three relate to a wish to die and given that some of the most prominent advocates for the latter also involve themselves in the former.Though advocates for both euthanasia and assisted suicide have tried to soften and obscure this reality by the use of slogans such as 'assisted dying' and 'dignity in dying', I expect that most people understand the correct terminology. At the very least, people understand that both euthanasia and assisted suicide include an active decision by a third party or parties to take part in an action that has as its goal making someone dead.There is little substantive difference between the hopelessness experienced by the 'person on the ledge' who acts alone and the person who either asks for a lethal substance to take themselves or asks for a medical professional to deliver the dose. All three are about hopelessness.Few suicide prevention organisations have actively engaged with this relationship. The promotion of personal autonomy as the highest ideal added to a difficult prognosis colours both euthanasia and assisted suicide drawing the false conclusion that prevention is applicable to some and not to others. That some seeking an early demise should have their desire accepted. Accepted under the cloak of medicine that somehow sanitizes the grizzly behaviour.But in Belgium, that medical cloak has been extended in recent years to the suicidal but otherwise not dying. Between 50 and 60 cases of euthanasia were recorded in 2013 and 2014 where the overwhelming reason for the euthanasia request was recorded as psychological.The Belgian act of 2002 states that: The patient is in a medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that can not be alleviated, resulting from a serious and incurable disorder caused by illness of accident.Mental suffering, or what we would call psychological suffering is clearly included here. The phrase: The patient is in a medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering is entirely subjective. It is somewhat modified by the criteria: that can not be alleviated; a caveat that, one would have thought, would have excluded those for whom treatment had not been yet exhausted.That seems to be the opinion of 38 Belgian psychiatrists and medical staff who recently gathered to pen an open letter to the Belgian people questioning the rise in euthanasia for psychiatric reasons. (De Standard) Prompted by the widely publicised euthanasia death of the 24 year old "Laura" who did not want to continue living these medical professionals insist that those involved in the euthanasia request should provide proof that the constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering cannot be alleviated. Otherwise, as they say, the act of euthanasia would be illegal.They cite Co-Chair of the Belgian Euthanasia Evaluation Commission, Dr Wim Distelmans and his observations that two criteria must be satisfied: that the patient has suffered for a long time and is 'at the end of the therapeutic path'. They observe that often, given the opportunity, such people go on to 'develop a satisfying life' and observe that it is the nature of mental suffering of 'not seeing prospects' noting that, 'the impression of lack of outlook teaches nothing about the prognosis of mental suffering'. An unambiguous reference to the pathology of mental illness and suicide.Distelmans' assertion that the criteria that the person be 'at the end of the therapeutic path' appears disingenuous. In the case of Tom Mortier's mother, Godelieve De Troyer, she has been suffering clinical depression for years, was under good care but was suffering following a relationship break up. Distelmans could have insisted that she talk to Tom and his sister; a clear therapeutic option. He did not. Dr Marc van Hoey could have likewise withheld the euthanasia of Simona de Moor who was grieving at her favourite daughter's untimely death until such time as she reconciled with her other daughter or until her grieving had passed. He did not."Laura" was clearly in the grip of suicidal ideation following the death of a friend. Though she appears to have had a history of mental illness, her request for euthanasia was triggered by her loss.The 38 medical professionals also observe that Distelmans' supposed twofold criteria will also have a perverse effect upon the work of psychiatric clinicians. They suggest that such clinicians may begin to question just how far they might be prepared to go in treating a patient who is asking to die.Distelmans is exposed further in the letter by the attribution of a quote wherein he observes that euthanasia for psychological distress is a necessary option 'as long as there are people who go throw herself (sic) under a train or from the top of an apartment building' adding that, 'euthanasia is still too taboo'.And there you have it: my opening point reinforced in a chilling fashion. Rather than actually helping the person 'on the ledge', Distelmans would rather simply change the method. And we've heard this many times before; the false reasoning that because desperate people choose to suicide we need to change the law. Where is due care in that equation?The Belgians are reinforcing any sense of hopelessness and adding into the mix nihilistic abandonment.A link to the Statement by the 38 Belgian specialists (in French) can be found HERE. Continue reading

Euthanasia, Dignity and Me by Daniel PaskWhat follows is a revised and expanded version of a talk I delivered to a group of students from the University of Sydney. I was on a panel with Gerentologist Dr. John Obeid and Jeremy Bell, philosopher and Monash Scholar. I beg your indulgence in terms of referencing style; if any mistakes in referencing really bother you, please let me know! Continue reading

Last night saw the screening of a documentary filmed by the Australian Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) and made by their highly regarded European Correspondent, Brett Mason. It looked at the Belgian euthanasia regime through the lens of personal stories.As the documentary unfolds we hear clearly from Mason, a voice of concern. To his credit, both in the documentary and in his blog story, he doesn't put his own views nor conclusions. Clearly, however, the reality of euthanasia is very different from his initial conceptual thoughts as evidenced in these comments from the blog: "I was taken aback - not for the first time in recent weeks - by just how mundane and unremarkable euthanasia is to those who perform it.""I'm unable to bury a burning sense of anguish in the pit of my stomach. While I fully accept and respect that this decision was the patient's and the patient's alone, over these last nine months I've been filming in Belgium questions have repeatedly been asked about how this nation's euthanasia laws are safeguarded." Continue reading

  On Friday the 11th of September the UK House of Commons debated MP Rob Marris' assisted suicide bill over five hours. UK MPs are not bound to attend parliament for 'Private Member's business'; so part of the difficulty in predicting an outcome is not only about finding out MPs intentions on any bill, but also about whether they intend to turn up on the day.As the debate began some 240 of the chamber's 650 members were in attendance with 85 of that number indicating a desire to speak to the bill.Marris' bill was a copy of the bill debated in the House of Lords prior to the British national elections. That bill, presented by Lord Falconer, passed at second reading and was modified by amendments before ultimately failing for lack of time. Common to many parliaments using the Westminster system, the upper houses tend to allow bills to pass at second reading to allow the extension of debate into the committee stage where amendments are possible. On Friday, the Commons was clearly in no mood to extend such courtesy.Friday's debate was marked by many commentators as a high-point in formal debating, in courtesy and in passion while absent the kind of cross-chamber argy-bargy characteristics normal in party politics. Opportunity was given to backbenchers to speak with few ministers or shadow ministers in the chamber. While some who spoke against the bill noted their attachment to 'sanctity-of-life' principles that suggested opposition based on religious conviction, the vast majority of those that spoke against the bill did so for practical reasons. Contrary to the popular myths, few seemed to be captive to ideology and most demonstrated clearly that they were not 'out-of-touch' with their community._vDddc-j4BA Continue reading