New Move to Expand Euthanasia in the Netherlands – Associated Press and DutchNews.nl Misrepresent Dutch Practice

Associated Press, DutchNews.nl, euthanasia, journalistic ethics, Netherlands, Our News & Commentary Blog, reality check

It’s hardly news when word comes out from the Netherlands that either the government, medical professionals or some private organization are seeking to expand the scope of the euthanasia laws.  After all, the consistent trend in the Netherlands has been to expand the practices of euthanasia and assisted suicide by expanding eligibility criteria, as we’ve written about here, here and here.

It’s also not unusual for the newswire reporters to disseminate articles on assisted suicide, euthanasia, and the Netherlands that are just factually wrong – often egregiously.  The Associated Press, in spite of having a code of journalistic ethics it claims to adhere to, is one of the most consistent offenders.  The AP, in fact, went so far as to conduct a poll on Kevorkian and assisted suicide that was factually incorrect, corrupting the validity of the poll responses.  The AP then used its own flawed poll as news that they themselves covered, acting as both newsmaker and reporter – an unacknowledged conflict of interest if ever there was one.

Well, there’s a new story out of the Netherlands and – as I said – it’s really quite unremarkable that a group is trying to expand the practice of euthanasia.  But the coverage so far actually is quite remarkable in that I haven’t read one news account that describes the so-called “strict guidelines” for euthanasia eligibility in the Netherlands accurately.  And one of those news sources is actually quite disturbing.

First here’s the intro to the news from the Associated Press, titled Dutch group proposes ‘mobile’ teams:

AMSTERDAM (AP) — The main Dutch euthanasia advocacy group says it supports creating “mobile” euthanasia teams of doctors for terminally ill patients who want to die in their own homes, rather than in a hospital.

The Netherlands legalized euthanasia in 2001 in cases where patients are suffering unbearable pain due to illness with no hope of recovery.

(The italics above were added for emphasis.)
A careful reader might notice that the two descriptions of “patients” given in the first and second sentences don’t match.  Anyone who is actually familiar with the euthanasia eligibility criteria in the Netherlands will know that neither description is correct.  Some of the media sites this appeared on included the Washington Post, Huffington Post, and cbsnews.com.

Did no one notice that one sentence stated that it’s terminally ill people who can get euthanasia while the other sentence asserts that “patients who are suffering unbearable pain due to illness with no hope of recovery” qualify for euthanasia?

As I said, neither definition is correct – and I’ll provide that definition with an authoritative source at the end.

What really surprised me about this is that when I did my search, what I found  – for once – the AP reporter who wrote this didn’t generate the misinformation on his or her own (or lift it from previous erroneous AP articles).

This time at least some of the misinformation was generated by a Dutch news source.  News sources in the Netherlands tend to be biased – naturally – in favor of the euthanasia practices in that country, but are generally accurate when describing the “strict guidelines” and eligibility criteria.

Not this time.  Here is how eligibility is described in the DutchNews.nl article titled Voluntary euthanasia group plans to set up ‘help to die’ teams:

Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands under strict conditions. For example, the patient must be suffering unbearable pain and the doctor must be convinced the patient is making an informed choice. The opinion of a second doctor is also required.  (Emphasis added.)

In fact, there is no requirement that a person be in actual pain to be able to be “helped” with euthanasia.  All that is required is that they have “unbearable suffering” – a broad, hard-to-define and very subjective term that has fueled the expansion of euthanasia practice in that country.

Don’t take my word for it.  You can download a pdf document from this site on the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport that spells out the rules. I lack the ability to cut and paste content from a pdf document to this blog, but here’s a summary from a different section of the same Ministry that summarizes the guidelines:

The greatest care has been taken to regulate care for patients who are suffering unbearably with no prospect of improvement. Euthanasia may only be carried out at the explicit request of the patient. 

Neither this summary or the longer version in the pdf document linked above mention “pain” or “terminal” as necessary to “qualify” for euthanasia.

Maybe it’s simple laziness and incompetence (that explains a lot of the lousy reporting in the US) or maybe this particular Dutch news organization just figured if the AP and other news organizations insist on misrepresenting euthanasia in the Netherlands, they’d just play along for consistency’s sake.

I plan on sending a link and copy of this blog entry to both the AP and to DutchNews.nl; experience tells me that there’ll be no reply from the AP.  I wonder if DutchNews.nl will follow suit on that as well.  –Stephen Drake

Georgia Disability Activists at Supreme Court Hearing on Assisted Suicide – Press Coverage and More

assisted suicide, court cases, disability activists, disabled queers in action, dqia, final exit network, Georgia, georgia adapt, media coverage, not dead yet of georgia, Our News & Commentary Blog, silc of georgia

The Georgia disability rights activists that attended yesterday’s hearing on the Final Exit Network’s (FEN) challenge to that state’s assisted suicide law were included in some of the major media coverage.  First, from wbstv.com (channel 2) in Atlanta, there’s a brief interview with disability activist Elizabeth Hune, alongside fellow activists Zan Thornton and Rebecca Ramage-Tuttle.  Here’s the link for the segment titled “Supreme Court takes up assisted suicide law.” Hune’s remarks are at the end of the 2 minute news segment.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution also published a story that included statements from Georgia disability activists, in an article titled “Final Exit Network faces state’s highest court.”  The remarks from Zan Thornton and Rebecca Ramage-Tuttle are at the end of the article:

Outside the federal courthouse, a small cadre of disability rights activists voiced concerns about the Final Exit Network and legalized assisted suicide.

Becky Ramage Tuttle, who suffers from spina bifida, said some people are too willing to help disabled people end their lives, because they are often viewed as less valuable to society.

Disability rights activist Zan Thornton noted that people sometimes say they’d rather be dead than disabled. She asked rhetorically, “How can they get help with suicide, but not for depression or pain relief?” She said she believes many people who contemplate suicide are suffering from inadequate medical care.

Finally, on Monday morning the Statewide Independent Living Council of Georgia posted the text of an op-ed written by disability rights activist Eleanor Smith:

Disability rights activists from Not Dead Yet of Georgia, Georgia ADAPT and Disabled Queers in Action are urging the state Supreme Court to uphold the prosecution of members of the Final Exit Network. Below is an op-ed submitted to the AJC by activist, Eleanor Smith – member of Not Dead Yet of Georgia. Since its submission, other advocates and disability organizations have signed on to the letter.

Equal Rights Includes Equal Suicide Prevention

As a disability rights activist, I see many people struggle every day to obtain the basic essentials to live and participate in the community. Because of many economic and attitudinal barriers thrown in people’s way, it’s not unusual for members of our community to experience at least brief periods of despair over what can seem like a never ending struggle.

I am very concerned over the “assistance” that members of the Final Exit Network (FEN) are eager to give to old, ill or disabled people who want to commit suicide. Young, healthy people sometimes feel suicidal, and in those cases law– and society as a whole –rightly step in strongly for prevention. But FEN singles out disabled people as candidates for active help to kill themselves.

One of the charges against FEN involves tampering with the scene of a suicide to pass it off as a natural death.

Also to consider is the troublesome report by an undercover GBI agent. The agent stated that one of the defendants, who had posed as a prospective FEN client, informed him that part of the “help” offered would involve holding his hands down to make sure he didn’t “inadvertently” rip the helium-filled bag off. It’s hard to believe that none of the roughly 200 FEN claims to have helped commit suicide didn’t change their mind at the last minute. The histories of at least two of the members of the FEN Advisory Board raise alarms. Faye Girsh and Ruth von Fuchs both have publicly advocated removing or lessening the legal consequences for family members who kill a disabled child or a cognitively disabled adult such as a person with dementia– provided that the killer claimed to have acted out of compassion.

What guarantees do any of us have that FEN members haven’t aided and abetted outright murders? The helium apparatus could easily be used to kill an elderly relative or child with cognitive disabilities, with no sign of struggle.

We ask the Georgia Supreme Court: Please proceed with prosecution for tampering with the scene of death. And please uphold Georgia’s ban on assisted suicide so that predators have some checks on their behavior.

Eleanor Smith – Not Dead Yet of Georgia
Patricia Puckett – Not Dead Yet of Georgia
Rebecca Ramage-Tuttle – Not Dead Yet of Georgia
Linda Pogue – Georgia ADAPT
Ryan Mercer
Vivian Teel – ADAPT
Georgia Advocacy Office
Harriet Harris – Circle of Support, Inc.
The Arc of Georgia
Greg Harry
Georgia ADAPT
Not Dead Yet of Georgia

National NDY is very grateful to all of the activists who mobilized quickly on only a few days notice – Rebecca Ramage-Tuttle, Pat Puckett, Eleanor Smith, Zan Thornton, Linda Pogue, Elizabeth Hune – and any others whose names I might have accidentally left off.  (If I did – drop me a note at my email address – sndrake at aol.com – and I will rectify the error ASAP.)

Georgia Disability Activists to Attend Arguments at GA Supreme Court Hearing on Final Exit Network

ADAPT, assisted suicide, court cases, disabled queers in action, dqia, final exit network, Georgia, Our News & Commentary Blog, press release

Today, Nov. 7, 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court will hear arguments on the challenge to Georgia’s assisted suicide law filed by members of the Final Exit Network.  The group claims that the law does not actually prohibit assisted suicide but does violate the First Amendment right to free speech.

Three disability rights groups from Georgia will be attending the hearing today, and handing out informational flyers on the activities of the Final Exit Network and why the group needs to be stopped.

The double-sided one page flyer is reproduced below.  NDY’s press release announcing the presence of disability rights activists at the court today can be found at:


The informational flyer is below:
DISABILITY RIGHTS GROUPS URGE
GEORGIA SUPREME COURT TO
UPHOLD PROSECUTION OF FINAL EXIT NETWORK
EQUAL RIGHTS INCLUDES
EQUAL SUICIDE PREVENTION
Disability rights activists from:
Not Dead Yet of Georgia
Georgia ADAPT and
Disabled Queers in Action
are attending oral argument in the Georgia Supreme Court
on Monday, November 7 at 10:00 a.m.
  • Disability activists are urging the state Supreme Court to uphold the prosecution of members of Final Exit Network.
  • Many people struggle every day to get the basic essentials to live and participate in the community. Attitudes based on prejudice are thrown in people’s way, so people sometimes feel despair over the never ending struggle for access and acceptance.
  • When young, healthy, nondisabled people say they want to commit suicide, society says their suicide would be a tragedy and tries to prevent it.
  • But Final Exit Network (FEN) members respond to old, ill and disabled people who want to commit suicide by agreeing and assisting them to do it.
  • That’s discrimination against people who are old, ill or disabled.
  • An undercover GBI agent, who posed as an FEN client wanting to commit suicide, said he was informed by one of the defendants that part of their “help” would involve holding his hands down to make sure he didn’t “inadvertently” rip off the helium-filled bag that would cause his death. There would be no chance to change his mind at the last minute.
Equal rights includes equal suicide prevention!
PAGE 2
Final Exit Network:
Myths vs. Realities
MYTH:The Final Exit Network (FEN) only “assists” the suicides of people who are terminally ill. 
REALITY:John Celmer, whose suspicious death sparked an investigation into FEN, was reported to be cancer-free in the coroner’s report. Under the “Who we serve” section of its website, FEN states that it will serve persons “who are suffering from intolerable medical circumstances and want to end their lives. Those conditions include Cancer, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease), Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s, Multiple Sclerosis, Muscular Dystrophy, Emphysema, Congestive Heart Failure, Stroke, AIDS, and many other lesser-known but serious ailments.” (From FEN  website)

MYTH:FEN “Exit Guides” only provide “counseling,” not “assistance.” 
REALITY:Legal authorities charge that part of the group’s assistance entails cleaning up the site of an allege suicide to make it look like a natural death. Moreover, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) claims that, during the sting operation it used with FEN, the agent posing as a cancer victim was told that the “exit guide” would hold his hands down after the helium-filled bag went over his head. FEN claims that this is to prevent flailing movements from accidentally dislodging the bag, but it would also prevent the removal of the bag by a person who had changed his or her mind.

 MYTH:Those that FEN “helps” are carefully screened. 
REALITY:The GBI agent in the sting operation that sparked the multi-state investigation posed as a cancer patient. He says that FEN never asked for his medical records. John Celmer, of Georgia, was cancer-free at death.

For more information contact:

RELEASE: Disabililty Rights Activists from NDY and National Council on Disability Featured on Dr. Oz Assisted Suicide Show

ari ne'eman, assisted suicide, Danny Robert, Dr. Oz, media coverage, media issues, national council on disability, Our News & Commentary Blog, press release

 Link: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/11/prweb8929655.htm

Disability Rights Activists from Not Dead Yet and National Council on Disability Featured in Dr. Oz Segment on Assisted Suicide

Members of Not Dead Yet and National Council on Disability were featured in a Dr. Oz segment on assisted suicide. Members expressed opposition to assisted suicide, but overall the segment was biased in favor of the practice. 

Rochester, NY (PRWEB) November 03, 2011 

On November 1st the syndicated Dr. Oz Show broadcast a segment addressing the topic of assisted suicide. Several members of Not Dead Yet, a national disability rights group, and Ari Ne’eman, a presidentially appointed member of the National Council on Disability, attended the taping of the program by invitation. Ne’eman is also head of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network.

Both Not Dead Yet and the National Council on Disability, as well as several other national disability organizations, oppose legalization of assisted suicide. The groups are concerned that assisted suicide poses a danger to people with significant disabilities, whether or not their conditions are classified as terminal.

The broadcast opened with Montel Williams, who has multiple sclerosis (MS), describing his experiences of pain with MS, his previous suicidal feelings, and his current support for laws allowing assisted suicide.

During the program’s two-hour taping, Danny Robert, a man with multiple sclerosis who uses a ventilator, was identified as a member of Not Dead Yet and given the opportunity to speak from the audience. Robert spoke about his initial marriage break up and wish to die, and his concern that he would have died and missed his current life and new relationship if assisted suicide were legal.

After attending the taping, but prior to the broadcast, Robert wrote a guest Not Dead Yet blog about the experience. In part, he described his observations about a disabled woman featured in the segment:

[Excerpt] Dr. Oz introduced Dana, an African American woman in her late 40s or early 50s with ALS. . . . She sat in a manual chair, somewhat reclined, wearing a ventilator mask. A video played on the big screens, showing Dana before tragedy hit, healthy, strong, athletic… (very exploitative). Then the ventilator mask came off (the ventilator alarmed briefly) and Dana began to speak. She said she had been living with the progression of ALS for 8 years and she was tired. She hated having to depend on others for her care and she couldn’t take it anymore. She said she was depressed, lonely, had no friends left and she wanted to die. Nadina [my life partner] and I looked at each other and said “that’s why she wants to die.”

[Excerpt] Dr. Oz asked Dana’s son how it felt to live with his mom. He said it was sad and that, though he didn’t really want her to die, he also didn’t want her to suffer anymore. Dana’s daughter said: “It’s heart-breaking, unbearable to watch her suffer. She’s had enough.” Dana’s sister, who has her health care proxy, reiterated: “She can’t take it anymore. She’s suffered enough.” It was obvious to us (but I guess to no one else) that the family had “had enough.”

Perhaps unintentionally, the episode demonstrated one of the significant reasons that Not Dead Yet opposes assisted suicide. “I really felt that Dana’s loneliness and feelings of being a burden on her family were at the heart of her apparent support for assisted suicide,” said Robert. “When Dr. Byock, another guest on the show, pointed out that she could just refuse antibiotics the next time she got pneumonia, Dr. Oz asked her directly if she would do that. Dana replied, ‘That’s a good question.’ When I looked at her expressions as her family spoke, I saw and heard a cry for help. But most of the Dr. Oz audience didn’t seem to hear her ambivalence and her plea. They just applauded her wish to die.”

Dr. Oz stated that he supports assisted suicide at the beginning of the taping and at the end of the broadcast. The producers included extensive footage and interview time with the disabled individual and family supporting assisted suicide, which was not comparably sought or obtained from a disabled individual and family opposing assisted suicide.

Ne’eman was also given the opportunity to speak during the two-hour taping. His comments were not included in the final one hour broadcast, but were included in two online video segments (part 1, part 2). Ne’eman was also invited to submit a written article on the topic which is featured on the program’s website.

# # #

 

Disability Activists, Assisted Suicide and the Land of Oz

ari ne'eman, assisted suicide, bias, bill peace, Danny Robert, Dr. Oz, media coverage, Our News & Commentary Blog

Yesterday – November 1 – the anticipated/dreaded Dr. Oz show on assisted suicide aired in most places, although syndicated shows such as Dr. Oz often play out on different dates in different locations. Disability activists Nadina LaSpina, Danny Robert, Ari Ne’eman, Julie Maury, Hope Derogatis and Bill Peace were all in the audience.  Danny Robert and Ari Ne’eman got to speak.  While Bill didn’t, there are several times you can see him clearly – looking generally pissed off at the tone and bias of the show.

Every one of them deserves a ruby slipper award for enduring this visit to the Land of (Dr.) Oz.

Ari Ne’eman was invited to write and post an essay on the Dr. Oz site.  It’s titled Death on Demand: Risks and Responsibilities.  Here’s an excerpt:

There are many critical civil rights issues facing Americans with disabilities and chronic health conditions – but the right to die is not one of them. Over the last 15 years, Americans have been engaged in an intensely controversial debate as to whether or not states should legalize assisted suicide for individuals with significant disabilities and terminal illnesses.

These laws – often promoted as “Death With Dignity” – appear on the surface to assist individuals expected to die within six months to request a lethal prescription from their physician. To the uninformed, these laws claim to enhance autonomy to a small number of individuals already at the end of their lives. Yet, as we’ve seen from years of experience where physician-assisted suicide has become legal, the reality is quite different. Far from assuring autonomy, the legalization of physician-assisted suicide has served to diminish true choice by creating an environment in which individuals denied access to necessary health care are made to feel like suicide is their preferred option. By advocating for so-called death with dignity, rather than the support and services people need to live, proponents of such laws bolster a system already denying dignity to hundreds of thousands of Americans with disabilities and chronic health conditions.

There’s a section for comments directly following the essay.  It would be great to have even more disability rights advocates chime in.

You can also watch video – cut up into very small pieces – of the show.  The Oz site isn’t friendly to embeds for video, so I can only provide links:

Do You Have the Right to Die? Pt. 1 – features Danny Robert after a short intro by Dr. Oz.  (In the opening shot, the guy who is to (your) the left of Dr. Oz wearing glasses and a maroon-ish shirt is Bill Peace.  Watch for him in other video segments.)

Ari Ne’eman challenges Montel Williams directly starting near the end of “Do You Have the Right to Die?  Audience Q & A, Pt 1” and continuing at the beginning of  “Do You Have the Right to Die?  Audience Q & A, Pt 2“.

As expected, the show was very biased.  The show opened with a woman who has a neuromuscular condition who says she’s tired of living with it and has family with her to support her – support her when it comes to dying, anyway.  Of all the people on the stage, Montel Williams is probably given the most time, because, well, this is entertainment and he’s the biggest celebrity there beside Dr. Oz.  Williams manages to disparage talk of the “slippery slope” while at the same time advocating for just such a slope.  He’s fluent in the stats concerning Oregon and the eligibility criteria.  Williams is clear, though, that he wants to end it all when he feels he is ready – no mention of terminality.  And, at the end, Oz the ringmaster of the show announces that he favors assisted suicide – with unrelieved suffering as his criteria.  So good old Oz wants public policy to slide down a slope farther down the hill than it supposedly has in Oregon and Washington.  The audience – from what we’re told by the folks who were there – seemed to be pretty stacked with people in favor of assisted suicide and not too picky about if the eligibility was “suffering,” “dying,” or “disabled.”

And by a strange coincidence, that put them in sync with both Montel Williams and Dr. Oz.

We are extremely grateful to all of our fellow activists who trekked in the downpour that day to get to the show.  Their presence and advocacy were probably the major factors preventing the show from being a total disaster.

I understand that, like Dorothy, everyone was extremely happy to finally escape from the Land of (Dr.) Oz.  –Stephen Drake