America’s leading assisted suicide lobby group, Compassion & Choices, has scored another public relations coup with the release of a third Brittany Maynard video.
Brittany, you will remember, is the 29-year-old woman from California who chose assisted suicide in Oregon last year rather than suffer a slow decline because of a brain tumour.
She made two videos which went viral on YouTube – no wonder, as they were directed by a New York public relations firm which put together a multi-platform media campaign for C&C called “Twenty Nine Years”. A professional story-telling consultant was employed to create the video. The celebrity magazines, the glossy women’s magazines, major newspapers and TV networks were provided with photos and interviews. Brittany became a media sensation.
Never far from the news it seems, the ABC Alice Springs reports today that the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Medical Association has expelled Philip Nitschke from its ranks.
This news comes immediately after the death of Nitschke's legal council last week. Peter Nugent QC was, according to reports, suffering from stage four cancer but was not understood to be near death. Nitschke told Fairfax Media that Nugent “had options in place” for ending his own life. He also said that Nugent's death was "perplexing" and "a great loss".
On Tuesday, February 17, the Colombian Constitutional Court gave the Ministry of Health 30 days to implement a number of protocols pertaining to euthanasia, setting guidelines for all health care providers in the Andean country.
During this time, health agencies are tasked with forming interdisciplinary committees to advise patients and their families on their decision to resort to euthanasia, in order to prevent such a decision being made as a result of mood or depression.
The Court said that “without clear rules and precise procedures, doctors do not know exactly when they are committing a crime and when they are contributing to the realization of a fundamental right.”
The concern is that the word “suicide” is dismal. It evokes nooses, ovens, bullets, insecticide and 20-storey buildings. When Gallup asked people in 2013 if they approved of doctors "end[ing] the patient's life by some painless means", 70 percent said Yes. When they asked if they approved of doctors helping patients "to commit suicide", that figure dropped to 51 percent. The word "suicide" radiates the baddest of bad vibes.
In a 9-0 ruling the Supreme Court of Canada struck down two sections of Canada’s Criminal Code "insofar as they prohibit physician-assisted death" in circumstances outlined by the Court. It appears that most or all of the major media outlets understood this to mean that the Court had legalized physician assisted suicide.
In fact, the Court has authorized physicians not only to help eligible patients commit suicide, but to kill them - whether or not they are capable of suicide. The ruling permits both physician assisted suicide and physician administered euthanasia in the case of competent adults who have who have clearly consented to being killed, and who have a grievous irremediable medical condition "including an illness, disease or disability" that causes "enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual."
On February 6, the Supreme Court of Canada found the current prohibitions against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) to be violations of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It charged the Canadian federal government with drafting a law to permit the practice.
Our current majority-Conservative government has actually stood firmly against moving in this direction, and was not alone in its opposition. Only four years ago, in 2010, our Parliament voted 228 to 59 against a Private Member’s Bill to legalize euthanasia.
Despite this, in 12 months, Canada is expected to legalize it and PAS, with all the “necessary safeguards” that sold this solution to pain and suffering of citizens around the world.
In a landmark decision the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday that prohibiting assisted suicide is unconstitutional and a violation of the country’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada is now the first country outside Europe to legalize assisted suicide.
The court unanimously affirmed the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal which had struck down the ban and ruled that a woman suffering from ALS, Gloria Taylor, had the right to ask for assistance in dying. Its judgement in what became known as Carter v. Canada stated that it is unconstitutional to deny physician-assisted suicide to:
“a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.”
“A quality-of-life ethic requires us to focus on a neonate's current and future quality of life as relevant decision-making criteria. We would ask questions such as: Does this baby have capacity for development…
click here to read whole article and make comments
Assisted suicide is an idea which keeps evolving in unpredictable ways. Who could have foreseen the development of groups of non-doctors which help hundreds of people to die in Switzerland? They are non-profits and charge only for membership and handling fees. But what if companies saw a commercial opportunity in the market for ending one’s life?
Almost everyone finds the notion utterly repugnant, including ardent supporters of assisted suicide. If funeral homes offer creative services for the already dead like drive-through viewing and car-shaped coffins, imagine what tacky deals they would dream up for the about-to-be dead. If you have any doubts about this, check out the options at Golden Gate Funeral Home, an innovative service in Dallas catering for African-Americans.
If the procedures are approved, they would be binding on hospitals and doctors throughout the country.
Spurring on this study is the feeling among transplant surgeons that healthy organs are sometimes wasted when patients are euthanased. In the words of a medical ethics expert with the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG), Gert van Dijk, “An estimated 5 to 10% of people who are euthanased could be considered for organ donation. Five percent does not seem like much, but this still means 250 to 500 potential organ donors every year.” He…
click here to read whole article and make comments
Careful! is MercatorNet's blog about end-of-life issues. We respect the dignity of each person from the beginning of life to its natural end. Leave your comments at the foot of our articles. The more the better! Write to us at email@example.com.