Canada: Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet established in Canada to organize against legalization of assisted suicide, euthanasia and associated threats

As of a few months ago, Canada now has a disability rights group dedicated to fighting legalization of assisted suicide, euthanasia and associated threats to the lives and safety of people with disabilities.

Logo for Toujours Vivant (french) Not Dead Yet (English) Canada
Logo for Toujours Vivant/Not Dead Yet Canada

Here’s a description of the group and their mission from the “about” section of the TV-NDY website:

About TV-NDY

Who we are and what we do

  • Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet is a project of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities Ending of Life Ethics Committee to include the voice of people with disabilities and focus on shifting public attitudes about euthanasia, assisted suicide, involuntary withholding and withdrawing treatment, organ allocation and harvesting, and other end-of-life practices that jeopardize the well-being of people with disabilities.
  • TV-NDY is a grassroots organization of Canadians with disabilities formed in response to the increasing popularity of assisted suicide and euthanasia in Canada and beyond.
  • TV-NDY is a secular, progressive organization.
  • TV-NDY’s mission is to work against assisted suicide, euthanasia, and other end-of-life practices that tend to discriminate against people with disabilities, elders and other vulnerable populations.
  • TV-NDY will also bring a disability-rights perspective and awareness of the effects of these practices to the debate around end-of-life issues.
  • TV-NDY works to educate, support, coordinate and lead the disability community’s effort to stop the “right to die” from becoming a duty to die or a right to kill.

Mission statement

Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet is a project of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities’ Ending of Life Ethics committee.
  • TV-NDY consists of persons with disabilities who oppose euthanasia, assisted suicide, and other end-of-life practices as violations of the civil and human rights of elders, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable populations.
  • We assert that society’s overall goal of discouraging suicide – as manifest in laws, policies and programmes aimed at preventing suicide – should be applied equally to all, including people with disabilities.
  • We hold that, in order to realize the promise of the charter of rights and freedoms, Canada has an obligation toward its citizens with disabilities to provide adequate health and palliative care according to the needs of the individual; prevent institutionalization, segregation and isolation; provide for the necessities of life and a reasonable standard of living; and remove social, economic, physical, communication, political and institutional barriers to full participation and equality.

We are thrilled that we now have a sister organization in Canada, which has Amy Hasbrouck as its Director.

Please check out the main page of Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet here.

You can also “like” the TV-NDY page on Facebook!

 

A “Must-Read” From Ezekiel Emanuel on Better “End of Life” Care

Right-Wing politics often leave me at a loss for words.  The attacks aimed at Ezekiel Emanuel before and after the passage of what is commonly called “Obamacare” is one of the most bizarre examples.  At the time, Emanuel was Special Advisor for Health Policy to Peter Orszag, acting director of OMB.

Emanuel struck me as a strange target.  In 1997, he wrote a strong essay against legalization of assisted suicide and/or euthanasia.  His latest essay opposing legalization of assisted suicide appeared on October 2012 in the NY Times.

Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about the attacks on Emanuel:

Betsy McCaughey described Ezekiel Emanuel as a “Deadly Doctor” in a New York Post opinion article.[29] The article, which accused Emanuel of advocating healthcare rationing by age and disability, was quoted from on the floor of the House of Representatives by Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota.[30]Sarah Palin cited the Bachmann speech and said that Emanuel’s philosophy was “Orwellian” and “downright evil”, and tied it to a health care reform end of life counseling provision she claimed would create a “death panel“.[10][31][32][33][34][35][36] Emanuel said that Palin’s death panel statement was “Orwellian”.[37] Palin later said that her death panel remark had been “vindicated” and that the policies of Emanuel are “particularly disturbing” and “shocking”.[38] On former Senator Fred Thompson’s radio program, McCaughey warned that “the healthcare reform bill would make it mandatory—absolutely require—that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner.” She said those sessions would help the elderly learn how to “decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go in to hospice care … all to do what’s in society’s best interest or in your family’s best interest and cut your life short.”[39] As The New York Times mentioned,[40] conservative pundits were comparing the Nazi T4 euthanasia program to Obama’s policies as far back as November 2008, calling them “America’s T4 program—trivialization of abortion, acceptance of euthanasia, and the normalization of physician assisted suicide.”[41]

Here’s a summary of what fact-checkers had to say about the allegations:

The nonpartisan Politifact.com Web site described McCaughey’s claim as a “ridiculous falsehood.”[39][42][43][44] FactCheck.org said, “We agree that Emanuel’s meaning is being twisted. In one article, he was talking about a philosophical trend, and in another, he was writing about how to make the most ethical choices when forced to choose which patients get organ transplants or vaccines when supplies are limited.”[45][46] An article on Time.com said that Emanuel “was only addressing extreme cases like organ donation, where there is an absolute scarcity of resources … ‘My quotes were just being taken out of context.'”[10] A decade ago, when many doctors wanted to legalize euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, Emanuel opposed it.[4] Emanuel said the “death panel” idea is “an outright lie, a complete fabrication. And the paradox, the hypocrisy, the contradiction is that many of the people who are attacking me now supported living wills and consultations with doctors about end-of-life care, before they became against it for political reasons.” “I worked pretty hard and against the odds to improve end-of-life care. And so to have that record and that work completely perverted—it’s pretty shocking.”[47]

To me, Ezekiel has been one of the “good guys” – pushing for better and more efficient health care for everyone, and staunchly opposed to legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Last Thursday – January 3 – Emanuel published another essay titled “Better, if Not Cheaper, Care.”  Here’s the opening:

IT is conventional wisdom that end-of-life care is an increasingly huge proportion of health care spending. I’ve often heard it said that people spend more on health care in the year before they die than they do in the entire rest of their lives. If we don’t address these costs, the story goes, we can never control health care inflation.

Wrong. Here are the real numbers. The roughly 6 percent of Medicare patients who die each year do make up a large proportion of Medicare costs: 27 to 30 percent. But this figure has not changed significantly in decades. And the total number of Americans, not just older people, who die every year — less than 1 percent of the population — account for much less of total health care spending, just 10 to 12 percent.

The more important issue is that just because we spend a lot on end-of-life care does not mean we can save a lot. We do know that costs for dying patients vary widely among hospitals, which suggests that we can do better. And yet no one can reliably say what specific changes would significantly lower costs. There is no body of well-conducted research studies that has proved how to save 5, 10, much less 20 percent.

Recent studies find that hospice may reduce costs in the last year of life for cancer patients by 10 to 20 percent. But they find no savings from hospice care for patients who die of other conditions, like emphysema or heart failure. No one is sure why hospice care doesn’t save more. It may be because patients are enrolled in hospice care too late, or because hospice services themselves are labor-intensive and not cheap.

Even if we can never save a dime, however, there are good reasons to think about changing end-of-life care practices. While end-of-life care has improved considerably over the last 30 years, many Americans still die in hospitals when they would rather die at home. Nearly 20 percent of deaths occur in an intensive care unit or immediately after discharge, and too many patients experience symptoms like pain that are controllable with appropriate palliative care.

Emanuel goes on to describe four changes in the delivery of care that could improve the lives of patients with serious medical conditions and their families.  They are well worth considering.

Over the next week, I’ll share some material regarding another professional who also has some great ideas about reforming “end of life” practice and is already implementing those changes on a “small” scale.

I’ll also share some other info that gives some pretty stark evidence of just how significant the barriers are to making changes that would make the practice of medicine safer and truly person-centered.

Minnesota: Final Exit Network Argues Assisted Suicide Law Violates Free Speech Rights in Court

From the Telegraph-Herald:

MINNEAPOLIS — Members of a national right-to-die group are challenging Minnesota’s assisted-suicide law, saying it violates constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association.

The group Final Exit Network is challenging the law after four of its members were indicted in May in the suicide of a Minnesota woman. Prosecutors say the defendants not only supported Doreen Dunn’s decision to kill herself in 2007, but provided her with information and support to follow through.

Final Exit members claim they do not encourage suicide, but that the act of giving information and emotional support could be interpreted as “encouraging” under a Minnesota law that makes it a felony for someone to intentionally assist, advise or encourage suicide.

Defense attorneys who appeared at a hearing Tuesday in Dakota County District Court argued that the statute is unconstitutional.

In documents filed ahead of the hearing, Final Exit Network general counsel Robert Rivas wrote that while the state may bar someone from “assisting” a suicide, it is unconstitutional for the state to ban “advising” or “encouraging” a suicide — pure speech.

Defense attorneys asked Judge Karen Asphaug to dismiss the counts related to the statute.

Asphaug took the arguments under advisement; it wasn’t clear when she might issue a ruling.

This is, of course, similar to the argument that the attorneys for Final Exit Network (FEN) made in regard to the assisted suicide statute in Georgia.  They were ultimately successful in that appeal, but it’s not clear to me that they have as strong a case here by any means.

Thaddeus Pope has a succinct reaction and analysis re: the proceeding – which he attended.  He’s impressed with the FEN lawyer and the argument.

More from the story:

The 17-count indictment charges Final Exit Network, its medical director Lawrence Egbert, 85, of Baltimore, and three other officials with felony counts of assisting suicide and interference with a death scene, a gross misdemeanor. The others named in the indictment are Jerry Dincin, 82, of Highland Park, Ill., Roberta Massey, 67, of Bear, Del., and Thomas Goodwin, 66, of Punta Gorda, Fla.

Most of those names should ring a bell to regular readers of this blog.  But for right now, the most important ones to focus on in terms of what “assistance” may mean are: Thomas “Ted” Goodwin and “medical director” Lawrence Egbert.

Both of these gentlemen have claimed to give much more than “advice” in very public venues.  In January of this year, Egbert made a claim that was reported in a long profile on him that appeared in the Washington Post:

Egbert tells me that years ago he asked someone who was about to “exit” if he could reuse the hood to save future patients the cost of buying a new one. The patient was delighted with the idea, Egbert says. He started asking everyone.The hood in my bare hands feels slightly slick. So, this one, the one I’m holding, has been used to end someone’s life? I ask. Egbert tells me it has surely been used at least once, and maybe several times, and the same could be said for most of the other 17 hoods in the garbage bag.

In case you missed it, Egbert informed the reporter that he routinely supplies used “exit bags” to “patients” so he can save them money.

Just last month, PBS aired a Frontline documentary on FEN.  In it, untold millions of viewers watched Ted Goodwin tell an undercover GBI agent posing as a cancer patient that he would hold the man’s hands down to prevent him from tearing the “exit bag” off once the suicide began.  Prior to this, Goodwin denied ever making any statement like that.  You can visit this post for a link to the documentary and a transcript of Goodin’s discussion of holding hands down.

Why is that important?  For one thing, it goes beyond “advice” to “physical assistance” – with the restraint of hands amounting to potentially something even worse.

But, in the meantime, the new article on FEN’s latest round in the court closes with this:

Final Exit Network is run by volunteers who believe that mentally competent adults have a basic human right to end their lives if they suffer from “fatal or irreversible illness or intractable pain” and meet other criteria, according to the group’s website.

“We do not encourage anyone to end their life, are opposed to anyone’s encouraging another to end his life, do not provide the means to do so, and do not assist in a person’s death,” the website says. (Emphasis added.)

Isn’t it about time that FEN took that claim off their site?  It would also be refreshing for certain folks dazzled by the legal arguments to stop and reflect on the ethics and implications of a group that makes claims that have been outright contradicted by prominent members in very public venues.

 

 

Canada: Council of Canadians with Disabilities, Canadian Assoc. for Community Living and Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Granted Intervener Status by BC Appeal Court

From Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director and International Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition:

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

 

Council of Canadians with Disabilities: Help To Live Not Die

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) and the Canadian Association for Community Living (CACL) were granted joint intervenor standing by the BC Court of Appeal, yesterday, in the Carter case.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) and EPC-BC were also granted intervenor standing, by the BC Court of Appeal in the Carter case, that will be heard by the BC Court of Appeal from March 4 – 8, 2013.

On June 15, 2012, Justice Lynn Smith decided, in the Carter case, that the law protecting Canadians from assisted suicide was unconstitutional because it deprived some people with disabilities equal access to suicide. Justice Smith also ordered parliament to legalize a limited form of euthanasia and she gave Gloria Taylor, one of the plaintiffs, a constitutional exemption to die by euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Gloria Taylor died from natural causes on October 5, 2012.

On July 13, 2012, the Hon Rob Nicholson, Attorney General of Canada, appealed the decision by Justice Smith, in the Carter case, to the BC Court of Appeal. It is expected that the Carter case will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.

To raise money for the legal costs to intervene at the BC Court of Appeal, CCD has established a website entitled: Help To Live Not Die. The Help To Live Not Die website explains the position of CCD on assisted suicide and encourages people to donate money for the legal costs for their intervention at the BC Court of Appeal in the Carter Case.

CCD is a national human rights organization of people with disabilities working for an inclusive and accessible Canada. CCD is the leading national organization of people with disabilities in Canada.

CCD/CACL oppose assisted suicide and have been granted the right to make the following arguments before the BC Court of Appeal in the Carter case:

1. they will provide insight into the interpretation of “death with dignity” in the disabled community;2. the impugned provisions are consistent with discouraging people from choosing death over life, while the trial judgement makes death more palatable for people with disabilities, a result incompatible with the values underlying (s. 7) and (s. 15);3. decisions allowing physician-assisted suicide of persons with disabilities is based on and fosters stereotypical thinking that is inherently discriminatory, and deepens the disadvantages and inequalities suffered by people with disabilities;4. financial and social conditions place increased stress on those who provide support to the disabled, creating greater potential for abuse. The autonomy of vulnerable people cannot be separated from the perilous and dependent circumstances in which they live, and the choices that flow from this;5. No reliable half-way measure exists for achieving the purposes of the impugned provisions. The trial judge erred in failing to properly consider and balance competing interests in her (s. 7) and (s. 1) analysis; and6. the Charter value of life underlies the impugned provisions and the exemption for the disabled created by the trial judgment cannot be justified.

In granting intervenor standing to CCD/CACL Madam Justice Neilson recognized that some of the arguments are already being made by the Attorney General of Canada, but she stated:

“I am persuaded an important distinction lies in the fact these applicants present these arguments from the point of view of the disabled community, a segment of society that will be profoundly affected by the outcome of the appeal and whose perspective should be before the court.”

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) needs financial support to enable them to intervene in the appeal of the Carter case. Donations to EPC can be made online here.

And remember that the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) is also raising funds to support their legal efforts.  They present their case on the Help To Live Not Die website. Not Dead Yet is very pleased that the CCD/CACL were granted intervenor standing in the appeal of the decision by Justice Smith in the Carter case – largely in recognition of the organizations being a voice for people with disabilities.  Below is a video – with captioning (!) – of NDY and CCD’s Rhonda Wiebe explaining CCD’s take on assisted suicide:

Montana: Diane Coleman Letter on Elder Abuse and Assisted Suicide Published in Missoulian

On December 2, the Missoulian published a letter from Diane Coleman – President and CEO of Not Dead Yet.

The title the paper gave the letter was: “National disability rights group concerned Montana could legalize assisted suicide” – the title might surprise you, since a lot of sloppy reporters and spin-doctoring reps of assisted suicide organizations have claimed that assisted suicide is legal in that state.  It’s not.

Here’s a link to the letter, with text and more info below:

Not Dead Yet is a national disability rights group with members in Montana, some of whom are seniors. On behalf of our members, I write to say that we are extremely concerned that assisted suicide, sometimes euphemistically called “aid in dying,” could be legalized in Montana.

It is estimated that there are 21,265 cases of elder abuse annually in Montana, reported and unreported (http://web.archive.org/web/20101021101332/http://www.eadaily.com/15/elder-abuse-statistics/).

Statistically, 90 percent of elder abusers are a family member or trusted other. Similarly, people with disabilities are up to four times more likely to be abused than their same-age nondisabled peers.

In Oregon and Washington, legal assisted suicide has opened new paths of abuse against persons who “qualify” to use these laws. A more obvious problem is a complete lack of oversight when the lethal drug is administered. If an abuser were to administer the drug without the person’s consent, who would know?

It is simply naive to suggest that assisted suicide can be added to the array of medical treatment options, without taking into account the harsh realities of elder abuse and the related potential for coercion.

For more information about problems with legalization of assisted suicide, please see www.notdeadyet.org and www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org.

Diane Coleman,

President/CEO,

Not Dead Yet,

Rochester, New York

(note – URL in text above is different than the one that originally appeared in the letter. The Elder Abuse Daily site seems to be defunct – sadly, organizations that concern themselves with  reporting and preventing elder abuse have a harder time finding funding than assisted suicide advocates, it seems.  The link provided above is to a snapshot of the original page, courtesy of the internet archive.)

Here’s a reproduction of some of the content of that page:

On February 15, 2010, in Data and Statistics, Elder Abuse, by Elder Abuse Daily
There are nearly 6 million cases of elder abuse every year.  That’s approximately one case every five seconds.  Unfortunately, many of these cases will go unreported. According to EADaily.com’s projections, California continues to be the state with the greatest number of elder abuse cases in the U.S., with 36% more than that of Florida, a state with second greatest number of elder abuse cases.
  • Every five seconds, an elderly person is abused.
  • California accounts for 10.6% of all elder abuse cases in the U.S.
  • Alaska has the fewest number of cases in the U.S. at approximately 8,900 cases per year.
  • Just five states account for over 1/3 of all elder abuse cases in the U.S.
  • California, Florida, New York, Texas and Pennsylvania have the most cases of elder abuse annually.
State / Region Elderly Population* Cases of Elder Abuse**
Arizona 1,176,503 129,952
Alabama 888,870 98,181
Alaska 80,613 8,904
Arkansas 561,850 62,060
California 5,728,021 632,693
Colorado 748,420 82,667
Connecticut 663,606 73,299
Delaware 169,763 18,751
District of Columbia 98,977 10,933
Florida 4,200,667 463,988
Hawaii 258,934 28,601
Georgia 1,433,316 158,318
Idaho 257,172 28,406
Illinois 2,176,100 240,363
Indiana 1,128,187 124,615
Iowa 596,110 65,844
Kansas 501,329 55,375
Kentucky 791,961 87,477
Louisiana 757,486 83,669
Maine 279,707 30,895
Maryland 964,119 106,492
Massachusetts 1,207,231 133,346
Michigan 1,822,024 201,253
Minnesota 902,284 99,662
Mississippi 516,129 57,009
Missouri 1,110,339 122,643
Montana 192,524 21,265
Nebraska 325,406 35,943
Nevada 432,112 47,729
New Hampshire 243,936 26,944
New Jersey 1,591,554 175,796
New Mexico 360,142 39,780
New York 3,597,839 397,402
North Carolina 1,623,389 179,313
North Dakota 125,521 13,865
Ohio 2,158,611 238,431
Oklahoma 677,530 74,837
Oregon 715,847 79,069
Pennsylvania 2,576,689 284,610
Rhode Island 202,028 22,315
South Carolina 849,263 93,806
South Dakota 157,050 17,347
Tennessee 1,155,990 127,686
Texas 3,515,525 388,310
Utah 344,758 38,081
Vermont 124,102 13,708
Virginia 1,337,055 147,685
Washington 1,127,229 124,509
West Virginia 393,061 43,416
Wisconsin 1,031,904 113,980
Wyoming 93,669 10,346
Grand Total 53,972,452 5 5,961,568
* Elderly defined as 60 years of age and older.
** Estimated # of reported and unreported cases of elder abuse.