Source: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2015/07/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:01:12+00:00

Document:
Most disabled people do not count their lives as ones of unmitigated or ‘irremediable’ suffering. Our despair comes, not from being disabled per se, but from the institutionalised discrimination we must battle on a daily basis, being excluded from living independently, bombarded on all sides with the idea that we are ‘less than fully-paid-up’ human beings, being forced into poverty, denied basic human rights. Such is the discrimination we face, based solely on the fact that we are disabled, and no more starkly than in having us ‘marked’ for euthanasia by the SCC decision in Canada.
· The idea that anyone will be ‘forced’ to end their life prematurely - based only on a fear of becoming so incapacitated that they cannot end their own lives - is false.
· Another myth is that even psychiatrists agree amongst themselves about what constitutes ‘capacity’. The idea that there is one assessment which will guarantee this person is ‘competent’ now – and will be so tomorrow and the next day, until the moment they die - is false.
· Many people believe that their loved ones were left to die of starvation and thirst, ‘a most horrible death’. Neglect has meant many such deaths are real. But it is also true that when someone is actually dying, giving food and certain amounts of water, when their organs are failing, increases their final suffering from the human experience of dying. Good palliative care practice in such moments includes keeping the patient’s mouth hydrated with swabs. The proper titration of drugs eases pain.
· So-called ‘advance directives’ are not helpful. Peer-reviewed research shows that people are more likely to express a wish to die post-operatively, and more likely to ask to die the more serious the operation. That ‘desire’ fades as the patient recovers. If a psychiatrist assesses someone post-operatively to have a clear and settled intention to die, they may be ‘right’. But if patients are assessed weeks or months later they often no longer wish to die. It would be too late for those who are already dead. Death removes all choices and the possibility of a change of mind.
But it is not only after major surgery that such thoughts run in patients’ minds: and yet it may not take so long to see things differently.
Is it also understandable that after the initial reaction the man remembers he will meet his daughter for dinner that evening and must consider how he will explain to her and his other children, his wife, his family, his friends that he will not even try to meet this last battle? Every suicide involves other people.
If the doctor reacts to the initial ‘I can’t go on’ with a shrug of the shoulders and says ‘It’s your choice. We have the means. It’s legal now.’ how will that help the terrible end-of-life decisions the man is now faced with?
If the doctor remains clear and gives information about the bodily processes which will take over, absent of treatment, and waits sympathetically, returns later to check the patient’s thought-processes, allows for shock and grief to pass – even the tiny bit of time necessary for some re-balancing in the man’s unbidden reactions - is this not a more compassionate response?
Evidence shows that the main reason people give for wanting to die is not to be a ‘burden on others’. It is hard to suffer; it can be harder to watch a loved one watching you suffer. That is a critical part of our human experience. Their sense of powerlessness, loss, grief, impending doom, their exhaustion, their very love, all play a part, mixed at times, worse one time than at another, confused and sometimes even unrecognised.
The prohibition denies people…the right to make decisions concerning their bodily integrity and medical care…by leaving them to endure intolerable suffering, it impinges on their security of the person.
There is no definition of ‘intolerable suffering’. Certainly some people may hold to one decision as to another, but the lie in this court ruling, is that there is anything to be described as ‘bodily integrity’ or that it ever makes sense to say ‘It’s my body’ or any of the usual formulations of that idea. No-one can own their body – we can own a house or a coat or a car. The problem is that this looks like a meaningful sentence – it is actually nonsense. It is a corruption of the concept of ‘ownership’ which has come to be accepted without reflection. And yet on such nonsense are court rulings of such magnitude built.
So the real question always becomes – who is such a law for?
It is for the protection of doctors, family members, others who are willing to provide suicide assistance.
The majority of doctors do not want any part in ending the lives of their patients. The majority desire to ease suffering. So those who want to participate in taking the lives of other human beings must be forced to explain their motivations.
There are far too many nuances in human and family life to ever be clear who is influenced by their supposed loved ones to come to want die. But there are also those who feel they are acting genuinely from love and compassion. Is such a law for them too?
I hope that our first response to someone who says ‘I want to die’ is always to help him out of despair, verify and treat depression, succour him to a different perspective on his life, its value. I fear the hope is often in vain.
‘Well, after all these years, you have done enough. We all understand why anybody in your situation, should want to die. We would, in your place. Look how it will ease your family’s pain and burden. So yes, absolutely, we will do everything we can to help you to commit suicide. We have a lethal dose of drugs waiting’?
What about her husband, her family, her friends, her job?
That reaction and it may indeed sometimes be (mistakenly) thought of as one of simple human compassion is based solely on discrimination towards disabled people as disabled people. The condescension in it is worst of all.
That’s where the dangers lie. As we keep saying, it is not the fact that individuals should ever reach a decision to die that is at stake here: it is the consequences of legalising such a reaction to the decision that matters.
 As Baroness Jane Campbell, the longest survivor in Britain with SMA, has pointed out, the proposed legislation puts her ‘in the waiting room’ so that one day when she is feeling low what would stop any doctor from responding to her request to die? (House of Lords debate, Hansard 17 July 2014 – I paraphrase only a little for the sake of brevity).
Opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide based on evidence of disability discrimination.
Jane Campbell: Assisted suicide could lure me into the grave.
Opposing the Supreme Court of Canada assisted death decision.
This article was published by Advocate Daily.
Canadian government consultation on legislative options for Assisted Dying begins.
Concerns of bias in a panel appointed to lead efforts in dealing with the Supreme Court of Canada’s historic lifting of the prohibition against assisted suicide are unfounded, given that the fundamental issue of whether the practice should be decriminalized has already been decided, says Toronto health and human rights lawyer Hugh Scher.
The panel, appointed by the Harper government, will be led by Dr. Harvey Max Chochinov, an international leader in palliative care and the study of dignity at the end of life. His expertise and qualifications are unparalleled anywhere in the world, says Scher.
His fellow panellists are disability rights expert Catherine Frazee, professor emeritus at Ryerson University and former Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and Benoit Pelletier, an expert in constitutional law at the University of Ottawa and former Quebec cabinet minister, reports the National Post.
Both Chochinov and Frazee were expert witnesses called by the Canadian government to give evidence and reports in the Carter assisted suicide case that eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. A review of the decisions by all levels of court in the Carter case praise the expertise and evidence led by these two witnesses, which was virtually unchallenged at trial.
The panel will conduct online consultations with Canadians and key stakeholders on possible options to the high court’s ruling and report back to the government by late fall, likely after the October federal election, says the report.
The group will focus on which forms of assisted dying should be permitted — assisted suicide, where a doctor prescribes a lethal dose of a drug the patient takes herself; voluntary euthanasia, or death by lethal injection — eligibility criteria and safeguards to protect a doctor’s “freedom of conscience” not to participate against his or her moral or religious objections, reports the Post. Whether assisted suicide is health care or medical treatment, or whether it should be separated from medical treatment, is a serious issue that will need to be canvassed by the panel in light of feedback from the public and expert stakeholders.
Scher, a well-known voice in the end-of-life care debate, 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 formation of the panel is a responsible and sensible approach in terms of giving the government the opportunity to hear from Canadians, stakeholders and experts from all sides as to the various difficulties and challenges that are sure to be encountered through any system that seeks to decriminalize assisted suicide and impose a level of safeguards to enforce the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada,” Scher tells AdvocateDaily.com.
Constitutional considerations, says Scher, will be extremely important as the panel begins its work.
“Given the medical, human rights and constitutional background that each of these panel members collaboratively bring to the table, I believe that they are extraordinary choices to facilitate a discussion and dialogue with Canadians on all sides of this issue relative to the considerations that should go into the application of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the formation of a law that seeks to give effect to that ruling,” he says.
They should be seen as advisors, not decision-makers, he says.
“Their role is to facilitate the receipt of cross-country feedback and discussion relative to what should be implemented in order to give effect to the Supreme Court ruling, including with respect to such matters as ensuring the voluntariness, consent and capacity of people seeking an assisted suicide,” says Scher.
While it’s unclear at this time which government may ultimately be receiving the panel’s recommendations, “any government of any political stripe would benefit from the advice and recommendations of a panel of this level of expertise and prominence with their depth of knowledge, insight and facilitation skills,” says 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.
Glyn Davies - Assisted suicide: This is a road down which we should not go.
Glyn Davies, the MP from Montgomeryshire UK, responded to Rob Marris’s Assisted Dying (no 2) Bill in an article that was published today by Politics Home in the UK.
Davies, focusses on the effect of legalising assisted suicide in the UK. For instance Davies responds to Marris's assertion that assisted suicide is happening already. From the article.
Mr Marris will be aware that breaches of the existing law in this area are rare. Less than 20 cases a year cross the desk of the DPP throughout the whole of England and Wales. However, he tells us that "terminally ill people are ending their own lives" and that "some doctors are complicit in hastening patients' deaths".
The claim about terminally ill patients ending their own lives rests on an extrapolation of data from just seven out of 139 health authorities. Even so, the number is dwarfed by the death rate from legalised assisted suicide in Oregon. Oregon's death rate from this source last year is the equivalent to over 1,500 assisted suicide deaths in England and Wales if we had a similar law here. And it is Oregon's law that is the model for Mr Marris' bill.
As for the claim that doctors are already engaging in hastening patients' deaths, I can do no better than quote the words of Sir Graeme Catto, Chair of the campaigning group Dignity in Dying (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society). He told Mr Marris' meeting last week that "that is highly unlikely" because "doctors now work in teams and it is very hard to get one-to-one contact". In fact, Sir Graeme was only confirming independent research, which has concluded that covert hastening of deaths of patients by doctors in the UK is "rare or non-existent"
Davies then points out that Marris's assisted suicide bill is based on arbitrary criteria. From the article.
... The essential question before Parliament is this: do you want to license doctors to involve themselves in deliberately bringing about the deaths of some of their patients? Most doctors don't want that.
All these 'assisted dying' bills rest on purely arbitrary criteria - like terminal illness (but not chronic illness or disability) and assisted suicide (but not administered euthanasia). Their boundaries are irrational and therefore permeable. That is why so many people are worried about the thin end of the wedge. This is a road down which we should not go.
This is a road down which we should not go.
Summary of Liz Carr's speech at Not Dead Yet UK rally.
Experts in care of the elderly speak out strongly against assisted suicide.
This testimony was published on the Not Dead Yet website on June 23, 2015.
A broader agenda was revealed by Oregon law co-author Barbara Coombs Lee last fall at a Connecticut forum. As the online journal CTNewsJunkie reported, “Coombs Lee also said the [Oregon-style] legislation would exclude people with dementia and cognitive declines, since they could not make the choice for themselves. ‘It is an issue for another day but is no less compelling,'” she said. Coombs Lee is now the president of the group Compassion & Choices, the saccharine rebranding of the old Hemlock Society.
To end their lives usually at home or in a hospital, the majority used sodium thiopental, the researchers reported. This barbiturate, ... is commonly known as the first of three lethal injection drugs administered to American prisoners who are executed under a death sentence. In 2011, Hospira Inc., the only company still making the drug at that time, stopped production at its Italian plant when the European Union banned export of the barbiturate as a way to end executions in the United States. However, this same drug has been chosen as Belgium’s standard protocol for euthanasia.
Other psychiatric diagnoses included post-traumatic stress disorder (n=13), schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders (n=14), anxiety disorders (n=11), eating disorders (n=10), substance use disorders (n=10), somatoform disorders (n=9), pervasive developmental disorders (n=8; including 7 with Asperger syndrome—an autism spectrum disorder (ASD)—and 1 with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), obsessive–compulsive disorders (n=7), dissociative disorders (n=7) and complicated grief (n=6), among others.
Study: 100 requests for euthanasia for psychiatric reasons in Belgium.
A healthy 24-year-old Belgian woman to die by euthanasia.
On July 17, the Canadian government appointed an expert panel to examine the Supreme Court of Canada assisted suicide decision. The panel has a website to enable groups and individuals to be part of a consultation. The panel will make recommendations to the government concerning legislative options for assisted suicide legislation.
The consultation website is now online in English and French.
The panel appointees are: Dr Harvey Chochinov, a psychiatrist and palliative care leader, Catherine Frazee, a disability rights leader and past co-director of Disability Studies at Ryerson University, and Benoit Pelletier, a member of the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa.
EPC is encouraging our supporters to "sign up" for the consultation updates on the consultation website by entering the required information.
EPC is urging our supporters to submit their opinions to the consultation.
People with disabilities, frail elderly people and those who are dependent on others can be subtly pressured.
Canadians need better end-of-life care. Caring Not Killing.
Elder abuse has become a scourge on our culture. Euthanasia may become the ultimate form of elder abuse.
Euthanasia is accepted for depression or other psychiatric reasons in Belgium and the Netherlands. These are people who need help not death.
The law needs to protect Canadians, especially when we are at the most vulnerable time of our lives.
It is important for you to state your opinion now.
Links to resource articles to help you respond to the consultation.
Supreme Court Assisted Suicide decision is irresponsible and dangerous.
Study: Euthanasia for psyciatric reasons - 100 Belgian cases.
Belgium: Euthanasia treatment for depression.
More than 1000 deaths were hastened without request in Belgium.
Assisted suicide shouldn't be for those in the fog of depression.
Liz Carr speaks about euthanasia of people with disabilities.
Assisted suicide ruling warps the perception of people with disabilities.
Assisted suicide is just wrong - disability perspective.
Ontario physicians want their conscience rights protected.
Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians - Assisted suicide should not be provided by palliative care physicians.
This article was published on Wesley Smith's blog on July 28, 2015.
We are a society of public policy promise breakers. Advocates for radical transformations in law and culture promise their proposed changes will be constrained and regulated by strict guidelines.
Then, when the policy becomes law, it is often Katy bar the door and the old promises are forgotten.
That pattern has not played out with organ transplant medicine. Yet.
But with the backlog of organs growing due to fewer catastrophic brain injuries and improvements in transplant medicine, the utilitarians want to make the dead donor rule dead (as I have written about often over recent years).
The latest promise breaker pusher is Walter Glannon, a Canadian bioethicist, writing in the philosophical journal Aeon. First, Gannon says honoring patient choice to be killed and harvested is more important than that the patient actually be dead first.
In a protocol developed by the transplant surgeon Paul Morrissey at Brown University in Rhode Island, for instance, kidneys can be taken from patients while they are alive because doing this does not cause brain death or heart death. Death is declared after the kidneys, and then life-support, are removed. This scheme applies only to kidneys, though, and is thus limited.
I was unaware this is happening. If so, “scheme” is the right word since it is crass sophistry that pretends that the taking of the kidneys would not cause death. Ironically, kidneys don’t deteriorate as fast as other organs. So, this seems to me a gambit to destroy the DDR. It should be stopped.
CA Judge: No right to Assisted Suicide in California.
This article was published by Wesley Smith on his blog on July 24.
Assisted suicide advocates care about results, not methods. If they can’t win in legislatures or in a popular vote, they try to have a judge impose their will.
Lest anyone cheer too loudly, the other case was filed in San Francisco–where anything can happen.
Of course there will be an appeal!
The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a "study" on July 28, 2015 examining 100 requests for euthanasia for psychiatric reasons in Belgium.
Wim Distlemans operates the euthanasia clinic in Belgium, and Lieve Thienpont, Kurt Audenaert, Peter P De Deyn work with the euthanasia clinic.
Distelmans has been connected to many of the high profile euthanasia deaths, including Godelieva De Troyer, the mother of Tom Mortier.
Thienport is the psychiatrist who approved the euthanasia death in the recent story of "Laura" the 24-year-old physically healthy Belgian woman who lives with suicidal thoughts.
Thienport was the psychiatrist who examined the 100 people who requested euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.
Link to a Youtube video of Thienport speaking about the study.
first, to report on characteristics of psychiatric patients requesting euthanasia because of psychological suffering; and second, to describe the formal assessment procedures and outcomes of the euthanasia requests. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to explore the determinants, procedures and outcomes of euthanasia requests in a relatively large group of psychiatric patients with psychological suffering.
this study was written to justify lethal injection for people who are healthy but living with psychological suffering in Belgium.
It is possible that Distelmans and Thienport designed the study in defense of the practice of euthanasia for psychiatric reasons after receiving complaints.
The study begins by promoting the "safeguards" in the Belgian euthanasia law and explaining how the safeguards for euthanasia for psychiatric reasons follows tighter guidelines. The first section of the study takes pains to convince the readers that euthanasia is carefully done in Belgium.
It then examines the data from the reported euthanasia deaths indicating that the number of reported euthanasia deaths has been increasing in Belgium from 742 (2004/2005) to 2086 (2010/2011). Belgian statistics indicate that there was a 26% increase in euthanasia deaths in 2013.
The study suggests that an increase in reporting of euthanasia, a requirement of the Belgian euthanasia law, may be reflected in the increased number of reported euthanasia deaths.
"This rise over a 6-year period may reflect a true increase or better reporting of cases of euthanasia."
A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) (March 19, 2015) found that euthanasia represented 4.6% of all deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium in 2013, while the official reports indicate that euthanasia represented 2.4% of all deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium in 2013.
When comparing the NEJM (March 2015) data (Jan - June 2013) from Flanders Belgium to the data in a previous study that was published in the BMJ (November 2010) (June - Dec 2007) from Flanders Belgium, it appears that the percentage of unreported euthanasia deaths is statistically unchanged between 2007 (47%) and 2013 (49%).
Last year, Dr Marc Cosyns, a Belgian euthanasia doctor, admitted that he does not report his euthanasia deaths. With nearly half of all euthanasia deaths not being reported one can safely conclude that the "safeguards" in the Belgian euthanasia law are often ignored.
Legally, the physician is required to discuss the wishes of the patient with the relatives named by the patient. Consent from the relatives is not required, and the attending physician needs the patient’s permission to inform family members of the euthanasia request.
This statement may be a response to complaints by families. Tom Mortier was shocked when his depressed mother died by lethal injection, and her family was not informed of her impending death.
People with disabilities are more likely to die by euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.
Of the 100 requests for euthanasia for psychiatric reasons, 81 of them were not employed (8 were retired, 73 were receiving disability allowances or retired early), 14 were working or on a temporary leave, 1 was a student, 1 was in prison, and 1 was on welfare. Primarily, these were people with disabilities who are receiving a disability allowance.
The study does not examine whether the person also had physical disabilities but it indicates that people with disabilities disproportionately die by euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.
38 people who requested euthanasia for psychiatric reasons were referred for further testing. Out of these, 17 of them were approved for lethal injection and 10 died by euthanasia.
62 people who requested euthanasia for psychiatric reasons were not referred for further testing. Out of these, 31 were approved for lethal injection and 25 died by euthanasia.
35 of 48 people who were approved for lethal injection died by euthanasia. The 13 people, in this group, who did not die by euthanasia, 8 changed their mind, 2 withdrew their application based on family response, 2 died by suicide and 1 was in prison.
65 people did not die by euthanasia. By the end of 2012, 57 were alive, 48 of the 57 cases were on hold based on the person receiving therapy or not needing therapy, 9 of these cases the euthanasia request was still being considered.
of the 35 people who died by euthanasia for psychiatric reasons, 14 of them were lethally injected by a doctor at the euthanasia clinic.
The authors should have collected more data about the 57 people who were alive at the end of 2012. Since the study was published in July 2015 and since all of the participants were patients of Lieve Thienpont, therefore further information would have been available and helpful.
A literature review made clear that the concept of ‘unbearable suffering’ has not yet been defined adequately, and that views on this concept are in a state of flux. It is generally accepted that this concept is considered to be subjective, dependent on personal values, and that it must be determined in the first place by the patient.
Unfortunately, there are no guidelines for the management of euthanasia requests on grounds of mental suffering in Belgium.
This "study" has was done by members of the euthanasia movement. All of the requests for euthanasia were made by people who were patients of Lieve Thienpont, a psychiatrist who works with Wim Distlemans at the euthanasia clinic.
This may be the first study to examine the experience with euthanasia for psychological pain, but it is also a study that appears to have been done to create more acceptance of euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.
Recently the Supreme Court of Canada decided that euthanasia could be acceptable for reasons of physical or psychological suffering. Let's hope that Canada keeps a tight lid on euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.
Healthy 24-year-old woman to die by euthanasia in Belgium.
Belgian euthanasia promoter attacks man whose mother died by euthanasia.
Netherlands euthanasia clinic specializes in psychiatric patients.
The Dutch media has reported that the Netherlands euthanasia clinic euthanised 18 people with psychiatric conditions in the first half of this year, more than double the number of psychiatric euthanasia deaths in 2014.
In the first six months of this year, 18 people with severe psychiatric problems have been helped to die at a special euthanasia clinic, the NRC said on Thursday.
The clinic was set up in 2012 to help people whose doctors are unwilling to grant euthanasia requests, and operates a nationwide network of teams made up of doctors and nurses.
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition predicted that the Dutch euthanasia clinic would focus on people with disabilities, those who lacked mobility and those with psychiatric conditions.
The 2013 Netherlands euthanasia report stated that there were 42 reported euthanasia deaths of people with psychiatric problems and 97 reported euthanasia deaths of people with dementia. The number of reported euthanasia deaths was up by 15% to 4829 in 2013.
At the very least, wait for an honest and intellectually satisfying analysis of the reasons behind the explosive increase in the numbers. Is it because the law should have had better safeguards? Or is it because the mere existence of such a law is an invitation to see assisted suicide and euthanasia as a normality instead of a last resort? Before those questions are answered, don’t go there.
It appears that the euthanasia genie is out of the bottle in the Netherlands. Let us take Professor Boer's advice by rejecting euthanasia everywhere.
A healthy blind woman dies by euthanasia in the Netherlands.
Assisted suicide should not be for those in the fog of depression.
The following article was published by Ottawa Life Magazine on July 23.
his opinion from the perspective of a Canadian with a disability.
There are valid points to both sides of the debate on Canada’s euthanasia legislation. Steven Fletcher — a Member of Parliament from Winnipeg with a disability — is the most visible proponent of physician-assisted suicide in Canada. Some would argue his position has merit. Many people with disabilities live in fear of not being able to control the end of their lives. Poorly funded palliative care combined with the possible inability to make one’s wishes clear has led to many people living painful lives.
The occasional media horror story has magnified those fears tenfold. But isn’t the answer to fix the system, rather to provide people with a lethal end? Isn’t the answer to think beyond causing death and provide all of us — including people with disabilities — with dignified lives?
People with disabilities live far from inclusive lives in Canadian society. With low levels of education and employment, inadequate housing and transportation services, and even a medical system that is not designed to handle our needs, people with disabilities have a long way to go to be considered equal members of our society.
The new euthanasia legislation is intended to provide some level of control over ending our lives, yet it’s sad that we’ve achieved equality in death before we’ve achieved equality in life. In Canada, like much of the world, people with disabilities do not have sufficient access to education, transportation, housing, medical care, employment, or recreation and leisure activities.
First and foremost, what Canadians with disabilities seek is an end to inequality and an end to the lack of access to the basic quality of life enjoyed by average Canadians.
The positioning of people with disabilities in euthanasia legislation is somewhat off-putting. It is as if to say we define people with disabilities as suffering, and now they can have the option to end their life. People with disabilities are as much or more interested in their rights to life, because being disabled means living with a disability; it doesn’t necessarily mean dying with a disease.
All too frequently, people with disabilities can recount a time when a well-intended medical professional said to their parents that the disabled life of this baby or injured child would be one of suffering and perhaps not worth living. In effect, we have provided those children with disabilities the means to die before they have the means to live.
Physically and/or developmentally Canadians with disabilities remain a marginalized segment of Canadian society. Our interests lie far more in rights to leading productive lives of equality, rather than achievement in ending of life options.
Catherine Frazee: There can be dignity in all states of life.
Belgium's sad assisted suicide path.
TV Ontario promotes assisted suicide.
The Oklahoman news rejects assisted suicide.
Euthanasia is not a human right in Europe.
Assisted Suicide is not a private matter.
German Bundestag debates assisted suicide.

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