Source: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2015/08/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:44:29+00:00

Document:
Political Risks and Rewards for Legislators Associated with Assisted Suicide.
y name is Dr. Jacqueline Harvey and I write today to share new and vital evidence from my latest study, "Assisted Suicide: Political Risks and Rewards for Legislators Associated with Votes to Legalize vs. Maintain the Status Quo" that will help inform your vote on ABX2-15. This paper was submitted for the 2016 Western Political Science Association in San Diego and is the first analysis of the political risks and rewards for lawmakers attributed to their vote for or against assisted suicide. It examines the fate of lawmakers in Vermont who passed the first and only assisted suicide bill Act 39 in 2013. By contrasting each lawmakers vote on Act 39 with 2014 election results as well as the subsequent voting records on assisted suicide for each office, the study indicates that lawmakers who voted to monumentally change the status quo on an issue as contentious as assisted suicide faced confirmed risks with no rewards.
There was a statistically significant higher incidence of losing re-election attributed to a pro-assisted suicide vote (r=.176) but no risk/losses attributed to an anti-assisted vote.
Voting against assisted suicide was not a factor that contributed to any of the 3 losses.
Voting in favor of assisted suicide was a factor in six out of seven failed campaigns, and was only ruled out in one case.
In every case where assisted suicide was a variable in re-election, 100% of those who lost re-election were in favor of assisted suicide.
In all six cases where assisted suicide was a factor, 100% of those who lost re-election were succeeded by legislators who voted to repeal Act 39.
Democrats comprised 100% of losses where assisted suicide was a factor and all were replaced by Republicans.
Neither party suffered a single loss due to a vote against Act 39, a total of 30 Democrats and 34 Republicans who voted against Act 39 and none of those who sought re-election lost to a pro-assisted suicide challenger.
Controlling for party-affiliation confirmed that there was no political benefit for voting in favor or opposed to Act 39. In the four out of ten cases where the candidates' position on assisted suicide was ruled out as a contributing factor in their loss, the two instances that include one vote in favor and one opposed both, which indicate voters did not choose a lawmaker over the challenger as a reward for their previous vote on assisted suicide.
The author of Act 39 was not rewarded with re-election for passing the first assisted suicide bill but unseated after six years in office by a candidate who voted to repeal Act 39.
The implications of these findings for you in regard to ABX2-15 is that the perceived support that passed Act 39 did not endure to the ballot box. Voters certainly do not reward their elected officials for supporting assisted suicide and potentially vote against them in retribution. Please consider this evidence when choosing if this issue, which already lacks public support, is worth the risks that you could face by offering your support.
Yesterday, delegates at the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) annual meeting rejected a motion (79%) to respect the conscience rights of physicians who oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.
The CMA has not announced its final policy yet but many physicians want nothing to do with killing their patients by euthanasia or assisted suicide, even after the Surpreme Court struck down Canada's assisted suicide law and gave parliament 12 months to legislate on the issue.
Today, the National Post published an editorial titled: On physician-assisted suicide, respect the conscience rights of all. The National Post first examined the position of physicians.
The results suggest there remains strong opposition to assisted suicide among the membership of the CMA, which until recently was officially opposed to a loosening of anti-euthanasia laws in any form. At the same time, it suggests there are enough doctors willing to aid a patient to commit suicide to serve the demand. Unfortunately, that is not enough to settle the matter of just when and how physicians will be involved.
Put yourself in the position of a doctor who believes euthanasia to be a deep moral wrong. This is not an antiquated or otherwise-dismissible position. The legalization of physician-assisted suicide is a revolution in medicine, which turns the role of doctors as a provider of care on its head and intrudes upon the Hippocratic Oath’s instruction to “not play at God.” It violates the traditional conception of medicine, beseeching the physician to do no harm. It is a new and relatively unchartered territory — altogether so here in Canada. It is imperative that the conscience rights of all be protected.
Any doctor should have the right to say, “I want nothing to do with this.” While this would obviously not allow him or her to interfere in the decision of another doctor to help a patient commit suicide, the conscientiously objecting doctor should equally be under no obligation to abet the killing of a patient in any way, whether directly or by referral to another doctor.
The Supreme Court’s finding ... means there are limits on how far Parliament can restrict the practice. It does not — and should not — imply an obligation upon all doctors to participate in the new assisted-suicide regime.
The National Post ends the editorial by urging parliament to recognize conscience rights.
As the CMA poll suggests, there remains considerable hesitation on the part of Canada’s physicians to jump on the euthanasia bandwagon. Accordingly, Parliament’s new law should be explicit in affording the utmost protection to doctors who do not wish to participate in this new and morally troubling enterprise.
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition recognizes that if euthanasia and assisted suicide become legal, the only way to protect people is by protecting the conscience rights of physicians.
When physicians have the right to say - I will not kill you - then they also have the right to say - I will protect you in your time of need.
The Canadian Medical Association rejects conscience rights for physicians.
63% of Canadian physicians will refuse to assist their patients suicide.
Euthanasia: Turning Canadian physicians into executioners.
Canadian Medical Association delegates rejects conscience rights for physicians with regard to euthanasia.
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) voted to reject a motion to protect the conscience rights of physicians who refuse to refer patients to die by euthanasia at their annual General Council meeting today in Halifax.
Physicians who oppose euthanasia are attempting to achieve a reasonable compromise.
Conscientious objection was a contentious issue, with 71% of delegates voting against a motion to support conscientious objectors who refuse to refer patients for medical aid in dying.
"What we expect from physicians, at a minimum, is that they provide further information to patients on all the options including the spectrum of end-of-life care and … how to access those services," CMA Vice President of Medical Professionalism Dr. Jeff Blackmer told reporters at a press conference Aug. 26.
Yesterday, the CMA released the data from an online consultation of 1407 members which found that 63% would refuse to assist the death of their patients, 29% would assisted the death of their patients upon request and 8% were unsure.
But only 29% of the physicians who would refuse to lethally inject their patients would also refuse to refer patients to their death.
“coercing physicians against their conscience” would damage patient-doctor relations and push some out of the profession.
The family of a man, who died by suicide are challenging their father's Will that gave $1.8 million to Philip Nitschke and his euthanasia lobby group, Exit International.
Mr O’Brien believed that every elderly person, terminally ill or not, should have that choice.
the legal challenge was “very surprising” given Mr O’Brien felt that he had provided for his children “very adequately”, and the directions for his estate should be respected by the court.
According to the Herald Sun Mr O'Brien died in July 2014 even though he was reportedly in good health. The Herald Sun also reported that O'Brien left $5000 to each of his surviving children.
Dying With Dignity Canada received almost 24% of their income in 2014 from bequests.
Today, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) released to the media the results of their online survey of members. The survey that was based on responses from 1407 CMA members found that 63% would refuse to assist the death of their patients, 29% said that they would assisted the death of their patients upon request and 8% were unsure.
For those who would assist the death of their patients, 43% would do so for non-terminal patients and 19% would do so for patients who live with psychological suffering.
The Supreme Court of Canada decision defined Assisted Death to include euthanasia (lethal injection) and assisted suicide (prescribing a lethal dose).
"I feel strongly that hastening death is not part of medicine. I think it eviscerates what medicine is intended to be. I think that asking physicians to be killers is contrary to the very core of medicine,"
physicians should provide information to patients on all end-of-life options available to them but should not be obliged to refer.
"No physician should be forced to participate against their conscience,"
"But there's disagreement about what this means."
29% of the physicians who refuse to kill their patients are also opposed to having anything to do with assisted death, while the others were either unsure or willing to refer their patient to another physician or administrator in some manner.
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition recognizes that if euthanasia and assisted suicide become legal, that the only way to protect people is by protecting the conscience rights of physicians.
News today that the Tasmanian State Conference of the Australian Labor Party endorsed a motion in support of a push for euthanasia has reignited the issue in the island state.
Euthanasia was last debated in Tasmania on the 17th of October 2013 when the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill was defeated 13 votes to 11 in the State's Lower House. Since that time, the State Election has changed the make up of the chamber offering, perhaps, the mover of the last bill, Lara Giddings MP, some hope that this time the outcome might be different.
The ALP motion - now part of the party's Tasmanian platform - is subject to the normal provision of a conscience vote and is, we understand, not binding upon State ALP Members of Parliament.
However, as noted in The Examiner, the three new members on the government benches for the Liberal Party are holding their cards close and claiming, at this time, to be 'openminded' on the subject.
Readers should note that, in 2013, Lara Giddings was Premier which provided her with additional control over the debate process. This time around she is a Shadow Minister on the opposition benches.
Time will tell. The Examiner reports that Lara Giddings will be looking to introduce her bill later this year.
New euthanasia bill in Tasmania.
While the federal election campaign is in full swing, the question of Euthanasia is beginning to make its way among major election issues in healthcare. Indeed, the next federal government will have the mandate to enact a law before February 6 in response to the Supreme Court’s judgment on "medical assistance in dying."
To stimulate discussions, the Ontario Ministry of Health has announced the creation of a second Expert Advisory Group in addition to the Federal External Panel set up by the federal government shortly before the dissolution of Parliament.
Composed of 11 provinces and territories, this new advisory group, led by Ontario, will too be responsible for providing advices on the development of policies, practices and protective measures to be taken with the legalization of assisted suicide on their respective territories. Several experts are featuring on its board, namely Maureen Taylor, Jocelyn Downie and Arthur Schaefer are well known pro-Euthanasia activists.
Since each election campaign launches political parties in a race for votes, candidates for the next government will be forced to gauge public opinion in order to establish their position on this social issue. It is therefore crucial that everyone takes part in the debate by answering the online survey of the Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group, as well as the online consultation of the Federal External Panel.
We also strongly encourage you to take advantage of this key moment in our democracy to contact your candidates and discuss with them about issues regarding Euthanasia and assisted suicide, in particular their social impact on families and caregivers and the measures to be taken to protect vulnerable people.
Living with Dignity, the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition are stressing the importance of expressing yourself in the polls, especially during electoral period. By doing so, you add weight to the experts’ recommendations in order to contain the excesses that the law on Euthanasia and assisted suicide will generate in a few months.
Final Exit Network found guilty for assisting the suicide of Minnesota woman.
A Minnesota Judge applied the maximum sentence to the Final Exit Network (FEN) for their role in assisting the suicide of Doreen Dunn (57) in 2007, after a jury found the Final Exit Network guilty last May.
Judge Christian Wilton senteced FEN to the maximum sentence by ordering that they pay a $30,000 fine plus $3000 towards the funeral cost.
FEN has been prosecuted for assisting several suicides. In Georgia, John Celmer, who was depressed after recovering from cancer, died after FEN assisted his suicide. Celmer's widow Susan Celmer, testified against FEN.
Last year Larry Egbert, the medical director FEN, lost his medical license in Maryland.
Minnesota Supreme Court upholds ban on assisted suicide.
This column was published by the Toronto Sun on August 20, 2015.
A doctor who is reluctant to perform an assisted suicide but refers a patient to someone else prepared to do it, is on the same moral ground as a doctor who willingly participates.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in February which struck down the ban on euthanasia prompted the Conservative government to form a commission on euthanasia last month.
One of the issues under debate is whether doctors should be compelled to perform assisted suicides on terminally ill patients.
In fact, it is absolutely crucial to determine who can influence the decision of carrying out a physician-assisted suicide.
The ethical and legal issues are complex.
Even deciding on a useful definition of “terminally ill” is a minefield, and that’s just the start.
Medical diagnosis and prognosis are inexact sciences, and mistakes in them often occur in Canada’s healthcare system.
To qualify as a terminal illness it must be incurable and serious; it must have caused an advanced and irreversible decline in bodily function; the person requesting the procedure must be in unbearable and constant pain, both physical and mental; the patient must be an adult, mentally sound enough to give credible consent.
As an extra safeguard, Quebec requires doctors and patients to get second opinions.
An independent commission composed of doctors, jurists, ethicists and ordinary citizens will oversee the process for reaching such decisions.
All the ground work seems to have been covered here.
Suitable patients will be only those who are the truly terminally ill and anguished patients who can no longer live with their situation.
Given this, it almost seems humane to grant their wish of dying with dignity.
But do measures like this adequately address the concerns of doctors who object?
The large number of Canadian physicians reluctant to perform assisted suicides throws doubt on the practicality of such a policy.
I have stated the reasons for my unease about euthanasia previously.
My biggest concern is that suicide is self-evidently an irreversible decision for a patient to make.
Medical advances that could directly impact on a patient’s decision to take his or her life may be unlikely, but they are possible.
A disease that is “incurable” today may have a breakthrough in treatment tomorrow.
Recently, for example, researchers at Thomas Jefferson University discovered that blocking certain types of proteins in the brain may allow them to administer drugs that can inhibit Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) a debilitating illness.
It is hard to imagine an issue more likely to provoke polarized and heated arguments than euthanasia.
Any law which tries to define its limits will face challenges not just from doctors, who are on the front lines of medical care, but from all sections of society.
The debate is much wider than the example of any single case.
No law is likely to be fair and comprehensive enough that it will address all concerns about allowing euthanasia as one humane option in genuinely dire cases.
New Mexico Supreme Court asked to hear assisted suicide decision.
On August 11, the New Mexico Court of Appeals handed a defeat to the right-to-die movement by reversing an activist lower-court ruling that legalized assisted suicide. In overturning the lower court decision, the Court of Appeals upheld the assisted suicide law in New Mexico.
Yesterday the assisted suicide lobby appealed the Court of Appeals decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court.
But, Aid in dying is assisted suicide and assisted suicide does not constitute medical treatment. Therefore prohibiting assisted suicide does not undermine the right to privacy or autonomy.
The case originally concerned Aja Riggs, a woman with uterine cancer, who said that she wanted to die by assisted suicide, and two doctors who were willing to prescribe lethal drugs. Riggs told the Albuqueque journal last December that she is now in remission. She is fortunate that the court did not give her an exemption to die by assisted suicide.
Since Riggs is in remission, the suicide lobby amended their claim. Now the case is based on Susan Brown, who has terminal cancer and David Bradley, who lives with ALS.
A similar case was dismissed by the Connecticut court in 2010.
Sean Murphy, the administrator of the Conscience Protection Project wrote an excellent article that was published by the National Post on August 20, 2015. In his article: Turning physicians into executioners, Murphy informs readers that the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) are debating the physicians role in euthanasia and assisted suicide at their annual meeting in Halifax next week.
One person’s right is another person’s obligation, and sometimes great burden, they wrote. And in this case, a patient’s right to assisted dying becomes the physician’s obligation to take that patient’s life.
Murphy then focuses on what an obligation to take a patient's life actually means.
An obligation to kill is distinct from authority to use potentially deadly force; neither police nor soldiers are obliged to kill. Traditionally, an obligation to kill has been imposed only on public executioners, its essence captured by Blackstone’s explanation that if the condemned were not killed by hanging, the sheriff would have to hang him again.
Murphy provides an update as to how the CMA changed its policy from opposing assisted suicide to that of regulating assisted suicide.
At the CMA’s 2014 General Council, delegates learned that almost 27 per cent of Canadian physicians were willing to participate in assisted suicide if it were legalized — and 73 per cent were not. This was urged as a reason to adopt a policy of neutrality. The board of directors helpfully sponsored a resolution affirming that, should the law change, the CMA would support physicians who follow their conscience in either providing or refusing to provide medical aid in dying. It was overwhelmingly approved.
Four months later, the board, citing the resolution, reversed CMA policy by declaring physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia to be end-of-life care. The new policy did not exclude minors, the incompetent or the mentally ill, nor did it suggest restricting euthanasia and assisted suicide to terminally ill patients or those experiencing uncontrollable suffering.
The board’s Christmas present for the Supreme Court of Canada was a blank cheque. It offered the unconditional support of the medical profession for the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide for any patient group, for any reason and under any conditions approved by the courts or legislatures.
What about those ... physicians who utterly reject the claim that physicians are ever obliged to participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide?
The policy states that they should not be compelled to do so, but adds that there should be no undue delay in providing the services. That is: conscientious objection is allowed only to the extent that it does not interfere with the obligation to kill, more felicitously phrased from the patient perspective as access to services.
In March, the board declared that all Canadians who meet the criteria should have access to assisted dying, as with any other medically approved intervention. This was accompanied by strong statements supporting conscientious objection, including refusal to refer for the services.
By June, these foundational principles had been rewritten to give priority to the obligation to kill at the expense of freedom of conscience. They were incorporated into a draft framework for consultation and presentation at the General Council in Halifax.
The framework supports conscientious objection, but only to providing euthanasia and assisted suicide, only if refusal does not cause undue delay and only if the physician refers the patient to a third party for assistance and information — whatever that might mean.
It is abundantly clear that CMA officials favour some form of compulsory referral, not only because they offer no other options, but because their draft framework is erroneous, incomplete and misleading — sometimes seriously so — and every error, omission and misleading statement favours referral.
Last year, CMA delegates approved a resolution said to be neutral with respect to euthanasia and assisted suicide, which the CMA’s board cited when it approved both and made an obligation to kill part of medical practice.
This year, delegates will be asked to approve some form of compulsory referral as a middle ground between this contested obligation to kill and freedom of conscience. What is presented as pragmatic middle ground is really an ethical quagmire.
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is wants the CMA to reject their support for euthanasia while recognizing physicians conscience rights.
California renews push to legalize assisted suicide.
California Governor Jerry Brown may need to veto the assisted suicide Bill AB 15.
The assisted suicide lobby has renewed their push to legalize assisted suicide in California after their previous assisted suicide bill, SB 128, was stopped in the Health Committee.
The assisted suicide lobby is taking advantage of the special legislative session called by Governor Jerry Brown to address shortfalls in healthcare funding. The new assisted suicide bill AB 15 is nearly identical to SB 128, but AB 15 will not be heard by the Health Committee.
"It is particularly troubling that in this rush to judgment, proponents are linking this bill with health care financing,"
"That should be truly frightening to those on MediCal and subsidized health care, who quite logically fear a system where prescribing suicide pills could be elevated to a treatment option."
Dr Jacqueline Harvey has written about how the assisted suicide lobby uses subversive strategies to sell assisted suicide.
Having lost fair and square in a California Assembly Committee, the suicide pushers have filed a new legalization bill–AB 15–for a special session intended to grapple with health care costs.
Assisted suicide advocacy is about lying. Catch this bit of mendacity from the bill: Aid-in-dying drug” means a drug determined and prescribed by a physician for a qualified individual, which the qualified individual may choose to self-administer to bring about his or her death due to a terminal disease.
No. The death would not be from any disease, but a lethal dose of drugs.
The committee has been re-jiggered to take the “no” votes away, I am told. Can we say, stacked deck?
And the bill is on a very fast track. Can’t give people time to think or understand why assisted suicide is bad medicine and even worse public policy.
If this shameful machination works, I hope Jerry Brown remembers his service to the dying with Mother Theresa. She is definitely spinning in her grave.
California Governor Jerry Brown may need to veto Bill AB 15.
The assisted suicide lobby is becoming desperate after losing two court cases in California, after assisted suicide bills have been defeated in several states and after the New Mexico Court of Appeals overturned an activist lower court decision to once again affirm protections in law from assisted suicide in that state.
The following article was published by on August 18 by Advocate Daily.
The formation of an advisory group representing Canada's provinces and territories on physician-assisted suicide is premature given that a federal panel appointed to lead efforts in addressing the Supreme Court of Canada’s lifting of the prohibition against it has yet to report its findings, says Toronto health and human rights lawyer Hugh Scher.
In February, the Supreme Court struck down the Criminal Code prohibitions that ban physician-assisted suicide in certain express circumstances and gave Parliament one year to legislate new rules to give effect to the ruling. The federal government then established an external panel to inform its legislative response to the high court’s decision.
Read: Provincial government appoints pro-euthanasia panel to devise euthanasia laws.
Now, Ontario’s provincial government has announced it will lead an advisory group representing the country’s provinces and territories to complement the work of the federal panel.
But Scher, a well-known voice in the end-of-life care debate, says the issue of assisted suicide has historically fallen to the government at the federal – not provincial – level.
“It has fallen under the federal government’s jurisdiction under criminal law, and it continues to remain the case that the federal government maintains jurisdiction over assisted suicide, which continues to be a criminal offence,” says Scher, who has acted as counsel to The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition in several high-profile cases including Rasouli v. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2011 ONCA 482 (CanLII); Cuthbertson v. Rasouli, 2013 SCC 53,  3 S.C.R. 341; Bentley v. Maplewood Seniors Care Society, 2014 BCSC 165 (CanLII); Bentley v. Maplewood Seniors Care Society 2015 BCCA 91; Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 BCSC 886 (CanLII); Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 BCCA 435 (CanLII); and Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5.
“The Carter decision said there ought to be an exception carved out of the general prohibition against assisted suicide based on tailored exemptions spelled out by the Supreme Court, but nevertheless the federal government continues to maintain jurisdiction over the regulation of assisted suicide,” he says.
“The notion that euthanasia and assisted suicide are somehow considered health care, falling under the provincial government’s jurisdiction is problematic and likely unconstitutional, notes Scher.
While provincial governments may eventually want to implement plans to adhere to the federal regime, Scher says it is premature for such considerations.
The composition of the advisory group is also concerning, particularly given its mandate, as many have a “clear and express record of advocacy of assisted suicide and euthanasia,” says Scher.
The group is to be co-chaired by Dr. Jennifer Gibson, director of the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, and Maureen Taylor, medical journalist and wife of the late Donald Low, says the news release.
“It seems that the panel is a stacked deck,” says Scher, who notes he’d like to see representation from provincial medical associations, for example. “I’m particularly concerned that the panel not wade into constitutionally uncertain territory in light of the ongoing federal jurisdiction over assisted suicide.
“It seems to me the appointment of the provincial committee is in large measure an intentional reaction to the formation of the federal government panel put in place, in an effort by the right to die community, aided by the governments, to effectively negate or otherwise offset any recommendations that may come out of the federal government’s panel on the issue,” says Scher.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.