(On January 25th) the Senate in France defeated a bill to legalize euthanasia by a vote of 170 to 142.

The euthanasia bill was sponsored in the French Senate by Jean-Pierre Godefroy (Parti Socialiste), Alain Fouché (UMP) and François Autain and Guy Fischer (Parti communiste-Parti de gauche).

The bill would have allowed euthanasia for people with disabilities, those with chronic conditions and people who are defined as terminal.

Interestingly, no English-speaking news source has covered this story. As a bilingual Canadian, Alex pulled the news off of a French news source so we monolinguals could know about it. I’d bet there would be all kinds of English language coverage if the vote had gone the other way. Funny how that goes.

You can read the rest of Alex’s blog entry here. –Stephen Drake

Belgium’s Bountiful Harvest – of Organs of Disabled People Killed Under Medical Supervision

January 25, 2011Belgium, euthanasia, organ donation, Our News & Commentary BlogStephen Drake

From Michael Cook at Mercatornet, comes this newest development from Belgium. Apparently, some doctors in that country are so excited about this that they put together a powerpoint presentation about the practice at a national conference:

A group of Belgian doctors are harvesting “high quality” organs from patients who have been euthanased. This is not a secret project, but one which they described openly at a conference organised by the Belgian Royal Medical Academy in December.

In a PowerPoint presentation, Dirk Ysebaert, Dirk Van Raemdonck, Michel Meurisse, of the University Hospitals Of Antwerp, Leuven And Liège, showed that about 20% of the 705 people who died through euthanasia (officially) in 2008 were suffering from neuromuscular disorders whose organs are relatively high quality for transplanting to other patients. This represents a useful pool of organs which could help to remedy a shortage of organs in Belgium (as everywhere else).

Though disturbing, this really isn’t surprising. Truly terminally ill people – at the end of a deadly disease process – tend not to have usable organs (suitable for transplant). Younger people with disabilities – spinal cord injury and neuromuscular conditions, for example – generally have organs that are healthy and suitable for transplant.

One has to wonder what kind of pressures – subtle or otherwise – will people with disabilities experience in Belgium as they are increasingly seen as viable donors, and maybe more “useful” dead than alive when their organs are seen as more valuable than they themselves are. –Stephen Drake

h/t to Wesley Smith at Secondhand Smoke.

Please Support Not Dead Yet With a Year-End Donation

December 29, 2010activism, advocacy, assisted suicide, Back Door Euthanasia, donations, Not Dead Yet, Our News & Commentary BlogStephen Drake

Not Dead Yet needs your help. As you might have noticed, pro-euthanasia organizations are flush with cash. They employ lobbyists, have public relations departments, pay for billboard campaigns and have even succeeded in pretty much ghost-writing some of the press coverage about assisted suicide and euthanasia.

The “right to life” organizations are also well-funded, but many intertwine anti-euthanasia advocacy with other issues of theirs, and with an eye toward bolstering one political party over another. Pro-euthanasia activists are more than willing to exploit that tendency and it’s worked out well for our opponents.

Not Dead Yet has been the organizing voice for the disability community for over a decade when it comes to so-called “end of life” issues. We function on a budget of about 1800 dollars per month. That covers the cost for salary and health care for one part-time employee. It doesn’t leave room for anything else. Not Dead Yet hasn’t had the cash to issue press releases online, to travel to venues where we can organize and/or educate others or to engage in many forms of advocacy and activism that just can’t be done without cash.

While the debate over assisted suicide is often presented as a choice between the right to self determination on the one hand, and a strict, religious based “right to life” on the other, NDY’s analysis takes an entirely different, disability-rights based view. NDY, and the many disability rights organizations that support us, believe that the practice of assisted suicide, euthanasia and medical killing do not take place in a vacuum, but in the real world where discrimination against disabled people leads to isolation, poor health care, insufficient or non-existent personal assistance services, chronic unemployment, poverty, and exclusion from social, civic and political life. NDY has demonstrated that, where these practices are concerned, the axiom “better dead than disabled” is the basis of decision-making for doctors, family members, and individuals who end their lives. NDY has documented time and again that, far from being applied exclusively to persons with “terminal” illness (less than six months to live) as advertised, people with non-terminal physical, cognitive and psychiatric disabilities, as well as chronic illnesses, are often affected by these practices.

Since 1997 NDY has drawn attention to the disability-rights implications of assisted suicide, euthanasia, and medical killing by filing friend-of-the-court briefs, organizing demonstrations at meetings of the Hemlock Society (and its successor, Compassion and Choices), participating in debates, educating legislators in jurisdictions where measures to legalize such practices are under consideration, giving media interviews, and writing articles, editorials and letters in professional and mainstream media. All of this has been done with two part-time staff, in-kind support from a community-based disability service group, a volunteer board of directors, and hundreds of volunteer community organizers in North America and beyond. NDY’s policy to refuse donations from “right to life” groups has meant that its funding has been minimal throughout its existence, yet has enabled us to effectively refute criticism that we are “tools” or “puppets” of the religious right.

Despite NDY’s many successful campaigns to prevent passage of assisted suicide laws in states throughout the U.S., the struggle goes on. Each successive legislature elected, ignorant of the information and reasoning which prompted its predecessor to decline to pass such laws, must be reached and educated again. And the disability rights-based opposition to assisted suicide is not simplistic and subject to sound bites. Getting beyond the shouts of recrimination with the quiet voice of reason is a long and difficult task.

Please help. We’d all like to make it possible for NDY to not only maintain but enlarge our presence and to put disability concerns front and center in these life-and-death debates. And we can’t do that without your help.

If you are at all able, please help us out so that we can be more effective in our work.

Tax deductible contributions would need to be made payable to:

“Center for Disability Rights” (CDR), designated for “Not Dead Yet” in the memo section of your check and mailed to 497 State Street, Rochester, NY 14608. Donations can also be made online by going to the Network for Good donation page, and following the prompts to donate to the Center for Disability Rights through the Network for Good (which allows credit card donations, adding a five percent charge), and designating the Not Dead Yet program. The default setting is for a one-time donation, but if you have the money and believe our work is important, please consider giving on a monthly or quarterly basis.

If anyone has any difficulties or questions please contact me via email. –Stephen Drake

“The Unspoken Argument” – Final Exit Network, Derek Humphry and a Rough Road Ahead

December 23, 2010"The Unspoken Argument", cost containment, Derek Humphry, final exit network, Our News & Commentary BlogStephen Drake

Last week, I was quoted in an Associated Press article about the legal challenge mounted by Final Exit Network (FEN) and one of the group’s supporters in a Georgia courtroom. I wrote about it in the last post on this blog. The more recent article, by AP reporter Greg Blustein, takes a broader look at the case and gives more information on the supporter, a woman with Huntington’s disease. Here’s a link to the story on the Huntington Post, which generally keeps AP stories online and accessible.

Here is the short segment with my quote, with some explanation added afterwards:

Critics say the group sends a dangerous message to society.

“It says that we’ll look the other way when not-so productive people commit suicide, that they are burdens and that society isn’t that troubled to see them die,” said Stephen Drake of the group Not Dead Yet.

As I recall, I made this statement in reaction to what it would mean if the courts decided to leave FEN alone – leave them to their “assisting” the suicides of old, ill and disabled people (assistance might include things such as helping to get the “client” over their ambivalence, holding their hands down, and cleaning up the area after the person dies to hide the fact that the death occurred through suicide).

So my reaction was aimed at the message sent to people with disabilities and the elderly if the legal system decided to give FEN a free pass.

Although not in the article, I also shared my belief that there was a lot more support in the general population for encouraging or facilitating suicides among old, ill and disabled people – but that the reasons have little to do with compassion or a deep respect for autonomy.

Nope. We’re in a deep economic crisis and there is, I believe, a growing sentiment that if someone living on Social Security, or who gets their medical care through Medicare or Medicaid, or depends on taxpayer-supported assistance for anything – if any of these folks die earlier rather than later then it’s a boon to the public welfare. They won’t say it out loud, of course. But it’s implied in some of the rhetoric about the “waste” of dollars on the elderly by people on the left and in the rhetoric of deficit hawks and Tea Partiers.

This isn’t a new insight, although, this dynamic may be more imminent now than it has been since I started working in this arena. No – the first analysis of this kind that I ever read was written by Derek Humphry and Mary Clement in the book Freedom to Die: people, politics, and the right-to-die movement.

The book was written in 2000. The second-to-last chapter is titled “The Unspoken Argument.” This seems a very appropriate time to remind people of what Humphry and Clement had to say ten years ago:

“Similar to other social issues, the right-to-die movement has not arisen separate and distinct from other concurrent developments of our time. In attempting to answer the question Why Now?, one must look at the realities of the increasing cost of health care in an aging society, because in the final analysis, economics, not the quest for broadened individual liberties or increased autonomy, will drive assisted suicide to the plateau of acceptable practice. As technology advances, as medical costs skyrocket out of control, as chronic diseases predominate, as the projected rate of the eighty-five-and-older population accelerates, as managed care seeks to cut costs and as Medicare is predicted to go bankrupt by 2007, the impetus of cost containment provide impetus, whether openly acknowledged or not, for the practicalities of an assisted death.” (Emphasis added.)

Obviously, some of their projections were off. At the same time, though, I think we should all take this seriously as an unusually honest analysis coming from the pro-euthanasia movement. And we can use Humphry’s words to level the charge that the growing sympathy for assisted suicide is nothing more than a cost containment measure masquerading as compassion. –Stephen Drake

Addendum – there is more to this chapter than the opening statement shared here, but it all goes to support that initial claim. I plan on returning to this chapter in the future and how it relates to the current realities we are dealing with right now.

Final Exit Network (FEN) in Court – Say Charges Violate “Free Speech”

December 13, 2010assisted suicide, final exit network, litigation, Our News & Commentary Blog, reality checkStephen Drake

Anyone who has followed the Final Exit Network (FEN) since the news broke out about the arrests of members in Georgia and Arizona has to have noticed that the group has changed its tune about just what its mission is, and just what kind of “help” they give to people who commit suicide.

A lawyer for FEN was in court on Friday arguing the charges against the four FEN members in Georgia violate their constitutional right to free speech.

The thing is, though, that the charges relate to alleged actions by FEN members, not words.

Unfortunately, no single news story contained every bit of rebuttal against the “free speech” defense.

So piecing from different news stories, here is a reality check about the criminal charges:

Forsyth News: “All four were indicted in March on one count each of offering to assist in the commission of suicide, tampering with evidence and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, Act.” (‘tampering with evidence’ means that FEN members cleaned up after the suicide to remove evidence that Celmer – and others ‘helped’ – died through suicide)
Georgia Public Broadcasting (GPB): “Meanwhile, a Forsyth County judge did not immediately rule Friday on a request to dismiss the case against four of the network’s members. An undercover officer posing as a suicide candidate testified one of the members showed him how they would hold his hands so he could not remove a helium bag from his face that would help him die.”

There is no telling when the judge will rule, or what that ruling will be. Luckily, the judge will most likely be evaluating the arguments presented in court – and not the mostly sloppy press coverage of FEN. –Stephen Drake