Canada: Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet Director Amy Hasbrouck on CBC panel on possible Quebec Move to Legalize Assisted Suicide

Amy Hasbrouck, assisted suicide, Canada, euthanasia, media, Our News & Commentary Blog, Quebec, Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet

On Friday, January 18th, Amy Hasbrouck, Director of Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet, participated in a panel on CBC – explaining the opposition of disability advocates to legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Here’s a description from the CBC site:

Quebec’s Right to Die Legislation: Will other provinces follow?

This week, the province of Quebec announced its intention to legalize some cases of physician-assisted suicide. It puts the province in direct conflict with Canada’s Criminal Code, which prohibits all forms of assisted suicide.

But a panel of legal experts advised the province that end-of- life care can fall under the healthcare umbrella — an area of provincial jurisdiction. Quebec’s junior health minister, Veronique Hivon explained the decision to reporters. We aired a clip.

Those in favour of more choice in end-of-life care hope this will set a precedent for the other provinces. But, some worry about the slippery slope…. putting the elderly and disabled in danger.

The laws against assisted suicide do seem to be under pressure. In June, a BC judge granted Gloria Taylor, a woman who suffered from ALS — the right to an assisted suicide, effectively striking down parts of the Criminal Code. Taylor died of natural causes in October, but the federal government is pressing ahead with an appeal and says it has no plans to reopen the debate.

We’ve assembled a panel today as part of our season-long series on ethical issues, Line in the Sand.

Russel Ogden is a criminologist as well as the director of the Farewell Foundation which supports assisted death. He’s been present at 6 “self-chosen” deaths here in Canada, the US and Switzerland. He was in our Vancouver studio.

Amy Hasbrouck is the director of Toujours Vivant – Not Dead Yet, a project of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. She was in Montreal.

And Dr. Kerry Bowman is a bioethicist at the University of Toronto. He was in our Toronto studio.

This segment was produced by The Current’s Dawna Dingwall.

The show is archived.  You can listen to it here.

National Association of the Deaf and American Association of the Deaf-Blind Respond to Belgium’s Euthanasia of Deaf-Blind Twins

American Association of the Deaf-Blind, Belgium, deaf-blind, euthanasia, National Association of the Deaf, Our News & Commentary Blog

On Sunday, January 20th, the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) and the American Association of the Deaf-Blind issued a joint statement in response to the euthanasia of deaf twins in Belgium who were losing their vision.

From the joint statement:

The National Association of the Deaf (NAD), the premier civil rights organization for deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the United States, and the American Association of the Deaf-Blind (AADB), the national consumer organization dedicated to the rights of the deaf-blind community, join forces to express their grave concerns that a national government has failed to provide meaningful support in life for its citizens, particularly those who are deaf and becoming blind as well as taking on other disabilities.

These concerns relate to Belgium, where deaf twins Marc and Eddy Verbessem had sought voluntary euthanasia, persisted in seeking it after their initial request was denied, and ultimately secured this tragic result.

Read the rest of the joint statement here.

Diane Coleman and John Kelly Letters to the Hartford-Courant

assisted suicide, Connecticut, diane coleman, john kelly, letters to the editor, Not Dead Yet, Our News & Commentary Blog, Second Thoughts

There’s talk of legislative action on an assisted suicide bill in Connecticut, and it’s being discussed in the newspapers.  Both John Kelly, Director of Second Thoughts, and Diane Coleman, President, CEO and founder of Not Dead Yet submitted letters that were published recently in the Hartford Courant:

Disability Activists Oppose Assisted Suicide Bill

Diane Coleman, Rochester, N.Y.
Not Dead Yet
on 2013-01-14

Though writer Peter Wolfgang notes the potential impact of legalizing assisted suicide on the sick, elderly and disabled, this is the only mention of disability in the dueling op-eds by Wolfgang and Ilene Kaplan on Jan. 13 [Opinion, “Final Prescription: Whose Decision Is It?”].

Pro or con, both ignore the voices of disability rights activists, whom many credit with tipping the balance in the recent defeat of the assisted suicide ballot initiative in Massachusetts.

Hoping to leverage success via the culture war, proponents of legalized assisted suicide have long claimed that it’s all about compassionate progressives ves. the religious right. But they haven’t been able to silence progressive physicians, and they haven’t been able to silence organizations such as the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, ADAPT, National Council on Independent Living and Not Dead Yet, all of which oppose legalization of assisted suicide.

If there’s going to be a public debate, disability groups belong at the table, and people should learn why they oppose it.

 

Not Just Religious Against Assisted Suicide

John B. Kelly, Boston
on 2013-01-15

In Ilene Kaplan’s call for the legalization of assisted suicide in Connecticut, “Dignity, Control As Life Ends” [Jan. 13, Opinion], she trots out the facile terms of the “culture wars.”

She would have readers believe that progressive defenders of personal freedom and choice face opposition only from a meddlesome religious right. But when Massachusetts voters rejected legalization in November, it was because a broad coalition of medical professionals, the disability community and liberals exposed the shoddy science and lack of compassion behind the bill.

It is impossible to build a social policy upon mere guesswork, which is how doctors characterize a terminal diagnosis. Many people are themselves or know longtime survivors of a doctor’s wrong prediction. The late Senator Ted Kennedy’s wife, Victoria, wrote that Teddy was given two to four months to live, but enjoyed “15 more productive months.”

Obamacare architect Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel warned of the likely abuse of “the poor, poorly educated, dying patients who pose a burden to their relatives.” Connecticut should instead ensure that everyone receives social supports, good home care, and all the comfort care currently available.

More on Double Euthanasia in Belgium, National Federation of the Blind Reacts, and Other Suicides in the News

Aaron Swartz, Belgium, deaf-blind, devaluation, euthanasia, National Federation of the Blind, Oskar the Blind Cat, Our News & Commentary Blog, pets, reality check, suicide

The 24+ hours since I posted on the double euthanasia of two deaf men in Belgium has resulted in some developments, varied reactions, and some reflection on my own part.  My apologies if this post seems a little scattered – a little like mental  multi-colored pasta thrown against the wall –  but sometimes that’s how my mind works.

First, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) issued a statement from Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the NFB:

“This disturbing news from Belgium is a stark example of the common, and in this case tragic, misunderstanding of disability and its consequences.  Adjustment to any disability is difficult, and deaf-blind people face their own particular challenges, but from at least the time of Helen Keller it has been known that these challenges can be met, and the technology and services available today have vastly improved prospects for the deaf-blind and others with disabilities.  That these men wanted to die is tragic; that the state sanctioned and aided their suicide is frightening.”

You can view the entire release and learn more about the NFB here.

At the same time, I’m sure that others have noticed that there are suicides getting a lot of coverage this week.  The Pentagon reports that deaths by suicide reached a record number in 2012, with more military deaths occurring due to suicide than from combat.  The suicide of programmer/activist/open source advocate Aaron Swartz – apparently overwhelmed by the double effects of depression and what is being called “overreaching” prosecution over his download of millions of journal articles.  He was faced with decades in prison and enormous fines.

Read through the comments on any of the countless articles covering these suicide stories and you’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone reacting like this:

  • “It’s their body, their choice.”
  • “When people decide they need to end it, they should be able to get help to do so.”
  • “It’s too bad they had to use violent means – animals can get euthanized; we treat animals better than humans.”

The lack of statements like those struck me because they’re common sentiments expressed in article “comments,” and interactions on Facebook when people react to “double euthanasia” of Marc and Eddy Verbessem, the identical twins whose deaths are still making news.

I think that we don’t see those comments in the cases of Aaron Swartz and the military because those people are valued.  I know that euthanasia proponents say that their movement is all about respecting individual choice, but why are the “choices” of  Marc and Eddy Verbessem “respected” while the suicides of military personnel and the suicide of Aaron Swartz are treated as preventable tragedies?  The answer, of course, is that euthanasia isn’t about “respect,” but agreeing that another person’s continued existence is pointless.

The animal comparisons always get me.  I’ve written before (with Dick Sobsey) about the myths surrounding the “kindness” of pet euthanasia.

What struck me this time was an even deeper disconnect.  Anyone who spends a lot of time on the internet knows that cats are probably the most popular thing in existence.  Some of the most popular pictures/videos of cats involve disabled cats – and dogs.  Right now, the most popular cat on the internet seems to be Oskar the Blind Cat:

 

If you look around, you’ll find stories of a deaf and blind dog rescued from euthanasia and a pet now for seven years and there’s even a story out there about a deaf/blind dog with three legs that rescued his family from a fire.

Oskar has lots of fans.  Stories like the ones about the dogs seem to make people just tear up and feel generally inspired.

But two deaf men losing their vision getting “put down”?  That evokes shrugs and even applause.

I don’t get it.  And I think I’m grateful I don’t.

 

 

Belgium: “Double Euthanasia” of Deaf Twins Losing Vision and Reactions from a Deaf-Blind Blogger

Belgium, bioethics, deaf-blind, euthanasia, Our News & Commentary Blog

Over the weekend, news came out of Belgium of a grim and bizarre new “twist” in that Country’s euthanasia practice.  According to reports, two 45-year-old twins were killed by lethal injection per their request (AKA “euthanized”).  They were both deaf and it’s said they were both gradually losing their vision.

From ABC News:

Two deaf twin brothers in Belgium were euthanized by their doctor after realizing they were going blind and would be unable to see each other ever again, their physician says.

The  45-year-old men, whose names have not been made public, were legally put to death by lethal injection at the Brussels University Hospital in Jette, on Dec. 14.

The men, who were born deaf, had a cup of coffee and said goodbye to other family members before walking into hospital room together to die, their doctor told Belgian television station RTL.

“They were very happy. It was a relief to see the end of their suffering,” said Dr. David Dufour.

“They had a cup of coffee in the hall. It went well and a rich conversation. Then the separation from their parents and brother was very serene and beautiful,” he said. “At the last there was a little wave of their hands and then they were gone,”

I used the ABC report for an important reason; reporter Russell Goldman looks to be the only reporter who has correctly stated that “suffering” – not pain – is an important criterion for “eligibility” for euthanasia, although he does err in implying that it’s “unique” to see non-terminally ill people qualify for euthanasia in Belgium:

The brothers are unique in that their illness was not terminal. Belgian law, however, allows doctors to euthanize “suffering” patients who are both mentally sound, over 18 and want to die.

Right now, there’s conflicting information coming out in pieces in various news articles.  I fully expect to revisit this as (I hope) individuals and organizations in the deaf, blind, and deaf-blind communities react.

There’s a pretty strong response from deaf-blind advocate, speaker and blogger “Coco,” who is pretty clear that this was not only  a bad thing for the two men who were killed, but for other deaf, blind and deaf-blind people.  She writes a blog titled “Tactile The World”  and her latest post is here:

I have not blogged in a while, life took its course. However, this topic is tragically urgent, something has to be addressed and discussed in the worldwide Deafblind community.

Two twins, both Deaf men, from Putte, Belgium (30 miles from Brussels) won the legal right to be euthanized (put to death legally by Belgian doctors) after citing their unbearable burden of going blind.

The Bangkok Post reported this and it became widespread, and then a French Belgian newspaper L’Avenir.net made their rounds about this story. Just now the Telegraph has written a more detailed article.

The twins, both shoemakers, had an unidentified eye disease that would take their sight in a few years (Usher Syndrome???) and at 45 years old, they requested the agreement of Belgian doctors despite not being diagnosed with a terminal illness or a physical disease. They were approved because it was “an unbearable suffering”….

She goes on to talk about response:

I wonder if the inevitable outcome of this tragedy would mean that more and more Deafblind, and other disabled people who don’t have a terminal illness or a physical disease, would follow suit and opt for ‘mercy killing’ and euthanasia because they have this conviction that they are, in theory, dying as a person when they think that the most vital sense is diminishing? Would this lead to an unnecessary ‘self-massacre’ of Deafblind people who, in their depressed state, think they aren’t able?

I am curious what Feviado, and the Belgian French/Flemish Deafblind community is going to do about this?

My strong suggestion is for those Db in Belgium to take a stand on this, denounce the euthanasia of Deafblind people, talk to newspapers and television about how Deafblind are able to do things granted Belgian government provides access and funding for Deafblind support services.

I agree with Coco – the Deaf-blind organization in Belgium should speak out on this.  In fact, I think it would be a big mistake for organizations and individuals outside of Belgium not to speak out about this double-killing.  Otherwise, the discussion will be dominated by Belgian euthanasia apologists, euthanasia advocates of all stripes, and bioethicists talking out the “problem” of “extreme” cases.  And then everyone will forget – until the next and more extreme killing comes along.

Please visit and read the entire original blog – “Belgian Deafblind Twins Euthanized!” and read the comments, which so far are in agreement with the points she’s made.