Vote On Assisted Suicide Expected Today In The NJ Senate, CALL YOUR SENATOR ASAP

Supporters of the Physician Assisted Suicide bill are working hard to try to get the Senate to schedule a vote on A2270/S382 for tomorrow’s voting session!

A2270/S382, the bill to legalize physician assisted suicide passed the Assembly in November of 2014 and was released without recommendation by the Senate Health Committee in December. It can be scheduled for a vote as early as tomorrow, December 17 in the NJ Senate. Please call and email your State Senator and urge him/her to Vote No on A2270/S382. Most states have rejected attempts to pass this dangerous legislation. You can find your Senator’s name and contact information and send a prewritten email  message to them by clicking on the link below that says, “Take Action.”    After you send an email to your State Senator, please also call their office and tell them to Vote No on A2270/S382!

You can find your State Senator by filling in your zip code on the Take Action page.

For more information on this issue, visit our website, http://www.njrtl.org andhttp://www.noassistedsuicidenj.org.

Please email and call your State Senator as soon as you get this email and urge them to Vote No on A2270/S382!   You can send a pre-written email to your State Senator by clicking “Take Action.”

LifeNews.com Note: Marie Tasy is the executive director of New Jersey Right to Life.

(lifesite news)

to find your state senator's phone number click on your township in this link

Assisted Suicide or Assisted Homicide?

THURSDAY, 17 DECEMBER 2015 05:29 BY AVRAHAM SHARABY

inShare

In what appears to be the next wave of anti-Torah progressiveness sweeping the nation arethe so-called “death with dignity” laws. This will become the greatest domestic danger to the Jewish community and the Western world at large. Right now, approximately 20 different states are trying to pass “assisted suicide” laws around the country, including New York and New Jersey the two states that have by the far the most Orthodox Jews. In NY, there are three different bills trying to accomplish this deed. In New Jersey last year, a bill already passed the assembly by only one vote and then progressed to pass the senate committee by only one vote. Since all bills that are not passed by January 12 will expire, the progressives are trying to make sure to pass this bill and very well might bring it up for a vote as early as Thursday, December 17.

While it’s clear that stopping these laws from being passed is clearly pikuach nefesh (the obligation of saving a life), even stalling them from passing may save one person. It’s also clear that this chiyuv to try and stop these laws would be more important than almost all other political concerns because we know pikuach nefesh trumps most other Torah laws. To not fight these laws would also fall under the prohibition of lo sa’amod al dam re’acha; for which the Rambam writes that violating the prohibition of lo sa’amod al dam re’acha “is as if one destroyed the entire world.” (Hilchos Rotze’ach 1:15-16)

While these laws are pure evil and assur (see Rambam Hilchos Rotze’ach 2:2-5) no matter how it’s implemented, they are even more evil in practice and can only be compared to Amalek. As we have already seen with other parts of the progressive movement’s “morality law,” laws consistently evolve and are implemented in ways beyond what the letter of the law actually allows.

These laws are supposedly written with safeguards, but we see clearly that these safeguards are not worth the paper they are written on. In NJ, assisted suicide bill patients are not required in most situations to get a psychological examination before getting approval for assisted suicide. As we saw in Washington State in 2012 (which has similar language to the NJ bill), only 3 percent of patients who “requested” an assisted suicide got a psychological examination. The proposed bill also doesn’t ban Medicaid from paying for this barbaric act. Furthermore, this bill does not allow a pharmacist to be exempted from filling the poison prescription, forcing a pharmacist to become an abettor to this murderous act (the law in NJ mandates pharmacists fill all prescriptions regardless of religious objections). The assisted bill does not have an investigation process to confirm that the patients actually want to commit suicide; all that is necessary to confirm that fact is the signatures of witnesses that the patient wants and is capable of making that decision. There is no confirmation process to check for forgeries or lies, they are going solely on the basis of those signatures. Finally, in perhaps the most grievous and sinister plot of all, the bill allows for someone who works for the patient’s medical insurance company to act as both witnesses.

Just a quick glance at other countries that are further along down this road than we are, and we see that assisted suicide eventually leads to outright euthanasia, and the worst forms of it, at that. We see in every single location that allows it that every year more people are killed than the previous year. It was reported years ago, that one in four doctors in the Netherlands admitted to killing a patient without the patient’s explicit permission, and in Belgium, 32 percent of patients who were killed did not give explicit permission. We further see how the laws keep expanding—recently Belgium passed child euthanasia, and a canton in Switzerland voted to force all nursing homes to have a special room for people to be killed.

Beyond just the actual murder, these evil laws will have major social implications, as we have already seen in Oregon where two different people were denied chemotherapy by Medicaid, but Medicaid “kindly” agreed to pay for the poison with which to kill them. As we know, medical insurance companies only care about the bottom line, and keeping people alive is not their top concern. So the fact that “suicide” is cheaper and, by liberal standards, the “moral” and “humane” approach, should give us all pause for contemplation. Once doctors become agents of death, they might not try as hard to save patients in the future. Society may eventually even decide that to not kill a suffering person is “inhumane.” As Jews who either witnessed the Holocaust or knew people who did, we must remember that before the Nazis implemented the “final solution” they first implemented “Action T4” which consisted of murdering those whose lives were deemed as not being worth anything. We know full well what this cheapening of human life ultimately ended with.

Unfortunately, many of these bills are supported by legislators representing Orthodox areas. As stated previously, the bill in the NJ assembly passed by only one vote; however, many assemblymen who voted for the bill (some of these districts had both assemblymen vote for the bill) represent Orthodox areas (Highland Park/Edison, Elizabeth, Passaic, Englewood/Teaneck/Tenafly) including the bill’s chief sponsor Timothy Eustace (Bergenfield/Fair Lawn/Paramus). If we could have gotten even one person to merely abstain on this bill, we would have killed the bill. In the NJ committee, a key deciding vote was Robert Gordon who voted to advance the bill despite his claim of having doubts. The only reason he can afford to do so is because he feels confident that he will still get our votes. It must be made clear to him that we are a vengeful people (Bamidbar 31:1). Politicians in general are very predictable people. They care primarily about reelection, and there are very few politicians who would vote for this bill if they would risk losing the next election because of it. Understanding that fact, we have to make sure they follow our views on this issue, or they will most surely follow our opposition. If we don’t do that they will play us for fools. We need to make clear to every single legislator who votes for this bill that under no circumstances will we ever vote for them, and we will go after them in primaries and general elections for the rest of their career; anything less is to be over on the lav of lo sa’amod al dam re’acha.

Of the senators in North Jersey with large Jewish populations, only Peter Barnes (Edison) has made his opposition clear, speaking at a press conference Monday, Dec 7. Please let Senator Peter Barnes, (732) 548-1406, know that we appreciate his opposition to assisted suicide.

Avraham Sharaby has an MA in Talmudic Law from BMG. He is a real estate broker in NY and is a finance director in north NJ. He lives in Lakewood, NJ, with his wife and two daughters.

By Avraham Sharaby

(Jewish link of NJ)

Assisted Suicide Legalized In California, Yet Still Effort To Overturn It

Referendum papers filed on assisted suicide law

A day after Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill allowing assisted suicides for the terminally ill in California, opponents filed papers to seek a referendum to overturn the measure on the November 2016 ballot.

A group called Seniors Against Suicide filed papers with the state attorney general’s office to get an official title and summary for the referendum, the first step toward collecting signatures.

The group would have 90 days, or until Jan. 3, to collect the signatures of 365,880 registered voters, a difficult task as those behind a failed referendum on the state’s new vaccine law recently found out.

“Illness is never a reason for ending a life,” said the letter from clinical psychologist Mark Hoffman to the attorney general. He said in the letter he is “working with other opponents of medically killing depressed and ill patients.”

The measure was also opposed by a group called Californians Against Assisted Suicide, which is made up of doctors, disability activists and religious groups, and has said it is considering a referendum among other options.

That group is not involved in the referendum filed Tuesday, according to its spokesman, Tim Rosales. "We learned about it this afternoon and are studying a number of alternatives," he said.

The new law, which is likely to take effect next year, would allow physicians in California to prescribe lethal doses of drugs to terminally ill patients with less than six months to live.

(LA Times)

Fighting to overturn this law is mamesh pikuach nefesh

Yesh Atid Sponsors Assisted "Suicide" Bill In Israel

Ministerial committee to mull 'death by prescription' bill

Amendment to Terminal Patient Law seeks to allow terminally ill patients to ask their doctors to prescribe lethal sedatives to end their suffering, exempting the doctors from criminal liability • Doctors warn move might lessen the value placed on life.

Bill seeks to legalize doctor-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients [Illustrative] | Photo credit: Reuters

The Ministerial Committee on Legislation plans to debate a new bill that seeks to legalize doctor-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients.

The proposal, dubbed the "death by prescription" bill, was drafted by MK Ofer Shelah (Yesh Atid). It will be presented to the committee on Sunday the one that just passed. 

Shelah aims to amend the existing Terminal Patient Law, which was passed in 2005 and regulates the medical treatments offered to terminally ill patients, and their right to demand or refuse to use drastic lifesaving measures. 

While the existing law allows doctors to refrain from prolonging the life of a terminally ill patient whose life expectancy is under six months, it prevents patients for actively seeking medical assistance to end their lives. 

The amendment will allow a terminally ill patient to ask his doctor to prescribe a lethal dose of sedatives to end his suffering. The proposal stipulates that any such request must be made in front of witnesses and on multiple occasions.

Doctors would still be barred from administering the lethal dose, and patients would have to take it themselves, exempting doctors from any criminal liability for their death.

In the United States, physician-assisted "suicide" is legal in Oregon, Washington and Vermont.

The bill has sparked controversy in the medical community in Israel, and many doctors have urged Shelah's fellow Yesh Atid member Health Minister Yael German to oppose the bill. 

"Doctors in Israel have earned the public's trust because of our outstanding dedication to saving lives," Israel Medical Association Chairman Dr. Leonid Idelman said. "This trust will be detrimentally harmed if, heaven forbid, any doctor pursues euthanasia."

In a letter to German, Idelman noted that the World Medical Association's official position on the matter states that euthanasia is unethical. 

A senior medical source said that should the bill pass, "it would lead to a slippery slope and lessen the value society places on life."

(israelhayom) highlights our mine for clarification

Belgian Senate Votes To Allow Euthanasia For Children

 רשב"ל אומר כל מי שנעשה רחמן במקום אכזרי סוף  שנעשה אכזרי במקום רחמן קהלת רבה

 Can this new law be used to "silence" children who know too much?  How much money will a "terminal illness" cost?  (Robert Adler) (read last piece on the bottom for an example by an adult)

  As we already saw recent studies about Belgium's euthanasia found that: 32% of the assisted deaths are done without request and 47% of the assisted deaths go unreported in the Flanders region of Belgium

The study that found that 32% of the assisted deaths are done without request, indicated that the people who died by euthanasia without request were usually: incompetent, did not have cancer, were over the age of 80, and living in a hospital. The same study indicated that these deaths represented “a vulnerable patient group.”

Further to that doctors who admit to not reporting assisted deaths usually do not follow the guidelines of the Belgian law. A recent study found that 73.1 % of the reported assisted deaths followed the guidelines while only 12.3% of the unreported assisted deaths followed the euthanasia guidelines in the Belgian law.

(to read what we posted when this law was first proposed)

from a Aug 2009 Time (very liberal) magazine article about euthanasia

 There were 1,133 cases of euthanasia recorded in Belgium in 2011, accounting for about 1 percent of the country's deaths that year, according to AFP

"We mark out opposition to this extension and express our trepidation in the face of the risk of a growing trivialization of such a grave reality," leaders of Belgium's Christian, Muslim and Jewish communities.

"A child cannot buy a house in Belgium. A child cannot buy alcohol in Belgium. And this law would allow a child to ask to be killed. And that is a real problem," Carine Brochier of the European Institute of Bioethics in Brussels told DW earlier.

From Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

•  The number of euthanasia deaths in Belgium is skyrocketing with an increase of 25% in 2012. Recent studies indicate that up to 47% of all assisted deaths are not being reported, 32% of all assisted deaths are being done without request and nurses are killing their patients, even though the law restricts euthanasia to doctors.
• Some Belgian experts are supporting the extension of euthanasia to children with disabilities because they say that it is being done already. The same medical experts suggest that the extension of euthanasia will result in an increase of 10 to 100 euthanasia deaths each year.
• The Belgian euthanasia law appears out-of-control. The Belgian Euthanasia Control and Evaluation Commission appear to be in a conflict of interest. The Commission supported the euthanasia deaths of: Nathan Verhelst (44) who was born as Nancy, Ann G who had Anorexia Nervosa and was sexually exploited by her psychiatrist, Mark & Eddy Verbessem, and at least one depressed woman. These are only the cases that we know about.
• Dr Wim Distelmans, who is the leading euthanasia doctor in Belgium has also been the chairman of the Belgium euthanasia commission for more than 10 years, and the commission has been stacked with supporters of the euthanasia lobby.

 from a recent study in the Journal of Medical Ethics showing that a strong minority of Dutch are in favor of euthanasia even if the person is healthy

BRUSSELS — Belgium took a big step on Thursday to becoming the first country to allow euthanasia for incurably ill children, after the upper house of Parliament voted by a large majority to extend to minors a 2002 law legalizing the practice for adults.

Under the amended law, euthanasia would become legal for children afflicted with “constant and unbearable physical suffering” and "equipped" “with a capacity of discernment.” During a sometimes heated public debate in the run-up to the vote, religious leaders condemned the move as entering “a logic that leads to the destruction of society’s foundations.” 

Philippe Mahoux, a Socialist Party senator and sponsor of the legislation, described giving terminally ill children the right to “die in dignity” as the “ultimate gesture of humanity.” He dismissed the religious leaders’ criticism, saying it was unrepresentative of the views of many ordinary believers, who he said supported the legal change. 

He said the legislation did not seek to define death — “that is for theologians and philosophers” — but to allow young people, with the assent of their parents, to choose the manner of their dying in the event of terminal illness and "intolerable" physical pain. 

Although Europe is generally far more accepting of euthanasia or assisted suicide than the United States, only a handful of countries have formally legalized medical interventions to cause death. Luxembourg permits euthanasia for adults, and Switzerland allows doctors to help patients die but not to actively kill them. The Netherlands allows euthanasia in special cases for gravely ill patients 12 or older. 

But Belgium — where adult euthanasia cases already number around 1,000 a year and rising every year — is the first country to propose lifting all age restrictions. 

Fifty of the 71 members of the Belgian Senate voted for the measure on Thursday. Just 17, mostly from the conservative, and traditionally Catholic, Christian Democrats, voted against. Four did not vote. 

Before becoming law, the changes must be voted on by the Parliament’s lower house, which is expected to take up the matter before elections in May. The measure seems likely to pass, and would put Belgium in a separate category from almost any other nation when it comes to allowing the terminally ill to choose to die.

The idea of euthanasia for children has been taboo in most countries, not only for religious reasons but also because of the horrors of Nazi Germany, which killed thousands of mentally and physically handicapped children under a program known as Kinder Euthanasie. 

Mr. Mahoux said in an interview before the vote that euthanasia for terminally ill children was already practiced on occasion in some Belgian hospitals and that the law would not lead to a surge in medically accelerated death among sick children but would save doctors from potential criminal prosecution.

The amended law extending the “right to die” to children mandates that euthanasia can be carried out only at the "demand" of a patient and that such a request be “voluntary, considered and repeated and not the result of external pressure.” 

Unlike adults, children would not be allowed to choose death on the grounds of “psychological suffering” but only when there was no hope of recovery from an illness that involves extreme physical pain. Parents must give their approval in writing. 

Religious groups, however, view Belgium’s efforts to extend its already contentious 2002 law to children as a dangerous erosion of moral barriers protecting the sanctity of life. “We mark out opposition to this extension and express our trepidation in the face of the risk of a growing trivialization of such a grave reality,” the leaders of Belgium’s Christian, Muslim and Jewish communities said in a statement. 

During a debate in the Senate on Thursday that included some angry exchanges, members of the Christian Democrats denounced the changes as open to abuse and fraught with peril. read the top and look at the links

Els Van Hoof, a Christian Democrat from Belgium’s Dutch-speaking community, argued that paying more attention to relieving the pain of patients instead of allowing doctors to legally kill them would “allow both old and young to die with dignity.” A 10-year-old, she said, is not in a position to make a life-or-death decision “in an autonomous manner” and will invariably be vulnerable to pressure.

Mr. Mahoux, who is a former surgeon, said “it is particularly painful to touch on the issue of death” for children, “but what is scandalous, in the primary meaning of the term, is first of all the illness of minors, incurable illness, their unappeasable suffering, and not their will to want and to be able to put an end to it.” 

Although often bitterly divided by language, senators from both French- and Dutch-speaking communities voted strongly in favor of the amended law. 

Belgium, which is mostly Roman Catholic by tradition but now largely secular in practice, has been far more open to the idea of euthanasia than similarly secular countries like Britain, where Parliament has rejected efforts to legalize assisted suicide. Belgium’s 2002 law gave adults the right to die in the event of “unbearable psychological or physical suffering,” a provision that widened the scope beyond just those suffering from painful terminal illnesses. 

This year, a 44-year-old Belgian requested and received a lethal injection after a botched sex change operation to become a man. The procedure was carried out by a Brussels doctor who had earlier overseen the euthanasia of congenitally deaf twins who feared they were going blind. 

Despite the occasional scandal, however, the public backs extending euthanasia to gravely ill minors, according to a study conducted for La Libre, a Belgian paper, and RTBF (Radio Television Belge Francophone). About three-quarters of those questioned said they supported the move. 

A group of pediatricians also issued an open letter championing the rights of children to choose their own fate. 

“Experience has taught us that in cases of serious illness and imminent death, minors develop a great maturity very rapidly, to the point where they are sometimes more able to reflect on life and express themselves than adults in good health,” said the letter. 

(NY Times) highlights our additions

The pending law will inevitably add fuel to the Quebec euthanasia debate, where government-led efforts to legalized assisted dying have been closely influenced by the Belgian example.

The bill first obtained approval from a Senate committee in November, then passed the Senate with the backing of the country’s socialists, liberals, greens and Flemish separatists. Only two Christian Democrat parties and the far-right Vlaams Belang opposed it.

“They sometimes say that age limits are arbitrary, but trying to judge whether a minor is able to make such a decision is even more arbitrary,” Els Van Hoof, a Flemish Christian Democratic senator, said in November.

 

Assisted suicide — where the doctor prescribes lethal medication, instead of administering it himself — is still illegal.


In January, deaf twins Marc and Eddy Verbessem, 25, successfully obtained doctor-administered euthanization after learning they were about to go blind, although they were not suffering from a terminal medical condition.


The Quebec National Assembly is conducting a committee study of Bill 52, which would legalize “medical aid in dying.”

The Netherlands allows euthanasia for children as young as 12. Supporters of the Belgian bill say only one Dutch child under age 13 has successfully obtained a legal euthanization.

The Belgian bill is expected to pass easily and become law, although proponents are urging deputies to rush the legislation through before Belgium’s spring legislative elections.

“We want this law to be definitively voted on before the dissolution of parliament,” socialist deputy Karine Lalieux told Agence France-Presse.
(National Post)

Dr. Kenneth Chambarae, who is part of the end-of-life research group at Brussels' Free University, specializing in the impact of legalized euthanasia, said the bill explicitly states that it would be possible only for competent minors suffering unbearable physical pain from a serious physical illness without prospect of improvement to request euthanasia. This is different from adults, who can also request it if they are suffering psychologically.

Chambarae argues the debate in Belgium is more one of principle than anything else -- that very few children would ever choose euthanasia but that the law now "discriminates" against them.

(CNN)

As many as half of the euthinizations in Belgium may not even be reported.

There are also accusations of psychiatrists abusing patients and pushing them to euthanasia to cover their malpractice. At least one case has surfaced where the psychiatrist was sexually abusing a patient who resorted to euthanasia. In another case, a pair of deaf, but otherwise healthy twins chose to commit suicide because one of them was possibly going blind and neither wanted to be blind or separated.
(catholic.org)

NY Post Write Editorial Supporting A Culture Of Death (Euthanasia)

Our aging crisis: the need for a dignified death

Photo: Shutterstock

In his final published work, “Mortality,” written while succumbing to esophageal cancer, Christopher Hitchens a athiest captures in one sentence the unavoidable "truth" of the dying process: “I don’t have a body, I am a body.”

No one understands this "truism" quite as well as journalist Katy Butler, who witnessed the prolonged process of dying that her once-formidable, war-veteran father underwent after suffering a stroke in 2001, devolving into dementia and then finally dying from pneumonia seven years later.

As doctors pushed life-support surgeries, new medications and cutting-edge interventions, Butler and her mother didn’t pray for a cure.

Instead, they wished for his death, all of which is chronicled in her troubling investigative memoir “Knocking on Heaven’s Door.”

The “end-of-life crisis,” or as Butler calls it “the caregiver crisis,” has hit epidemic levels as the number of Americans over 85 doubled to 6 million since 1990.

Baby boomers, like Butler, must now wrangle with what to do with sick elderly parents, asking questions of themselves they probably thought would never be fathomable: What can be done when a person lives too long? And has science gone too far in its mission to ward off death?

Through her experiences with her father, Butler is unwavering in her answers.

“Our optimistic science-worshiping culture wants to medicalize aging and make it nothing more than a collection of specific diseases that medicine can prevent or fix,” she writes. “But no matter what deal we make with the devil, nature outwits us. Dying can be postponed, but aging cannot be cured.”

These are bitter pills to swallow and many might fall in the trap of citing Dr. Kevorkian, death panels, and agism in health care as reasons why these end-of-life conversations should never start. But Butler argues that this very fear, our culture’s unwillingness “to engage with death until it is in our faces,” is what has gotten us so deep in trouble in the first place.

For example, 75 percent of elderly patients would rather die in their homes, yet 44 percent of them will die in hospitals, she writes. Last-ditch defibrillators, surgeries for incurable cancers and chemotherapy that only buys a few days continue to be the norm; while what she calls “Slow Medicine” — home and palliative care — remains on the fringes and is rarely covered by Medicare.

Meanwhile, about a third of Medicare patients will have surgery in the last year of their life and a tenth will have a surgery done in the last month of life, she writes — costing us an estimated $158 billion to $226 billion in medical overtreatment costs.

But what is perhaps worse is the emotional and traumatic toll continual care for a dying relative takes on the survivors, which is the true core of her book.

When Jeffrey, Butler’s hyper-intelligent Wesleyan history-professor dad, who lost his left arm while fighting in Italy during World War II, suffered a stroke at the age of 79, he was reduced to something much, much less: “With the memories, mind and reading comprehension of a highly educated 80-year-old; the spoken speech of a 4-or 5-year-old; and the physical dependence of a boy of 6.”

He could comprehend his shortcomings, and it made him “miserable,” she writes. At one point, he even commented that he had “lived too long.”

The stroke devastated not one, but two lives. “The day before [the stroke], my mother was a talented amateur artist and photographer, a woman of intimidating energy, and a spectacular housewife . . . After the stroke, she cared for my father the way she cared for my brothers and me when we were 3 or 4.”
At 77, her mother had become one of the 29 million “unpaid, politically powerless, and culturally invisible family caregivers,” while Butler herself joined the 24 million baby boomers now tending to sick parents.
When it became necessary for Jeffrey to undergo hernia surgery, his cardiologist suggested that they implant a pacemaker.

The family agreed, unaware of the downsides of what was such an (they would only later find) unnecessary preventative treatment.
Now, Jeffrey’s heart would tick on, long past his time should have been up.

“Not having a pacemaker would not have guaranteed my father a quick or easy death,” she writes. “But having a pacemaker deprived him of his best chance for one.”

Despite the surgery — or perhaps because of it — Jeffrey quickly got worse. Like about one third of those over 80, he suffered from dementia. His eyesight went, then his mobility. He began misspelling words. Then he began to see things that weren’t there. He became bladder and bowel incontinent.

“I woke up some morning in a fury. Why had his doctors not let nature take its course? If the pacemaker had never been implanted, I thought, my father might well have been out of his misery, and so would my mother and me,” Butler writes.

The family begged his cardiologist to turn off the pacemaker, but he refused. Other cardiologists refused, as well.

In 2008, Butler’s father contracted pneumonia.

Knowing that sending him to the hospital would only prolong his suffering with “life-saving” procedures, they avoided calling 911. He eventually became sick enough to be accepted into hospice care, where he finally died.
(NY Post)

Loading

the comments on the NY Post Article

NJ Poster
7 days ago

I have a better idea..how about we first ask the government why it allows nursing homes to receive about $6000 per month per patient whether it's private pay or government insurance?  Why do the nursing homes after receiving these monies allowed to pay their employees low wages?  What are these nursing homes allowed to steal the property of the patients?  Why are the nursing homes allow to file guardianship orders when the patients family want to remove them from the nursing homes?  Why are individuals allowed to own multiple nursing homes and make millions and millions off of private payees and the government.  Why does the government take every cent and every piece of property away from residents of a nursing home?  You don't think this happens....it does, multiple times, every day.  Fix that and see if our elderly do better, feel better live better.  Is Obamacare or any other government program or body going to ever address this?  This country should take better care of the elderly. 

luvgod245
7 days ago

If a person commits suicide it is a crime. Why? Because of the Judeo-Christian belief in the moral principle; Thou shall not kill. Government can take a life under the principle of justice namely, the punishment should fit the crime, or "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." What would be the principle for euthanasia: Feeling sorry for the old person? Feeling sorry for his or her caregiving family?  Cost of treatment and care? These are practical, expedient reasons, and none therefore is sufficient because of the Judeo-Christian MORAL idea of the sacredness of ("endowed by our Creator with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness").  Many people who believe in euthanasia are against capital punishment, yet are comfortable seeing their relative dispatched. Kill the unborn. Kill the sick. Kill the elderly. I see a pattern here, and it's not attractive. Wouldn't it be more MORAL to find better ways to help those being overly stressed by caregiving than the 'efficient' modality of killing the one being cared for?

 

 

Brett Gallian
7 days ago

My nearly 93 year old mother died in Switzerland where "suicide / euthanasia" is legal.
The doctor came to the house, gave her the poison and she fell to sleep in 4 minutes. She could no longer walk, stand, turn. She urinated in a catheter and her stool had to be removed manually every few days.
She would say I have my head but my body is dead.
Euthanasia for those who are even not terminally ill should be legalized in the USA.
The whole experience was traumatic for me and my mother.

Alan Beaver
7 days ago

The article is totally true. Plus the better the insurance, the more the Drs/hospitals can "sell" to the unsuspecting family more treatment. My mother went thru Blue Cross Federal, down to Medicare and finally into the bowels of medicaid. I will never forget at the 8th month of this year battle, I went up to my mother in the nursing home, because she couldn't talk being intubated, and asked her what did she want. Did she want to go home with Dad? She shook her head know. Then she rolled her eyes upwards towards the ceiling. I then knew what she ment. This went on 4 more months untill the staff had a meeting with us about "unpluging her" . That was the first time I ever saw my father cry. Two days later she was where she wanted to be. The most draining and emotional time......EVER!

Andrew Douglas
7 days ago

@Alan Beaver the hospitals fear the lawyers. You need to have a clear end of life plan.

 

 

Brett Gallian
7 days ago

@Alan Beaver
Your mother's case is also a good example why euthanasia should be legalized in the United states.
My mother who lived in Switzerland wanted to die. I delayed contacting the organisation that arranges euthanasia until I saw there was no hope.
Your mother continued to suffer for no reason.

 

 

jack morpher
7 days ago

this is all promotional fpr obamcare and end of life rationing
quality adjusted life years, and IPAB independent advsory policy board
people do not need newsies to know when to let go,  or encouragement when depleted and old,

and this is just that, encouragement of ending, discouragment of living
look fr more of it

Paul Vincent Zecchino
7 days ago

@jack morpher Agree, Jack. While reading this the same thought hit, 'stinks of a promotion for Obamacare', i.e.  Call today! Our helpful Deth Panelz are waiting to help you croak!'
As Mr. Grant often said, 'it's sick out there, and getting sicker.'

 

 

 

Washington State Assisted "Suicides" Increase 17% In A Year

from the official report

The number of Washington state residents who died of physician-assisted "suicide" rose to 83 in 2012, up from 70 in 2011, 51 in 2010 and 36 in 2009, when the state’s Death With Dignity Act took effect.

This is an overall increase of 130% since 2009 in the most north-west US state outside Alaska.
The Washington State Department of Health reported in May that 121 patients requested and received lethal doses of drugs in 2012.

The vast majority of the terminally ill patients who received life-ending drugs feared loss of autonomy, dignity and ability to participate in activities that make life enjoyable.
97% were white, 82% had at least some college education and 73% of the patients had cancer, said the report.
Last year I highlighted the huge increase in deaths from assisted "suicide" in Oregon and Switzerland of 450% and 700% respectively over ten years as further evidence of the incremental extension that inevitably follows any change in the law.

In the Netherlands euthanasia numbers have increased from 15-20% per year since 2006 and in neighbouring Belgium they have increased 509% in the ten years between 2003 and 2012.

more "suicides" but less oversight!

Washington is now showing the same pattern with almost a 130% increase in three years.

Careful examination of the Washington report also reveals that:
• Only 3 of the 121 people who were prescribed a lethal dose were given a psychiatric evaluation.

• One person died 150 weeks after receiving the lethal dose while 17 of the participants died more than 6 months after receiving the lethal dose.

• The physician who prescribed the lethal dose was present only five times during ingestion.

• One person died 16 hours after taking the lethal dose.

Margaret Dore, a Washington State attorney, highlights other causes for concern. She argues that the demographics of those who ingested the lethal drugs – ‘older people with money’ – are a prime target for abuse.
The report also gives no information as to whether all of the 83 people who died after ingesting the lethal dose took it voluntarily but merely records  the fact of ‘ingestion’.

Assisted "suicide" thankfully remains illegal in Britain and we see only a small trickle of 15-20 Britons per year going to the Dignitas facility in Zurich to end their lives.

But with an Oregon/Washington- type law we would see 1,200 deaths annually.

It is no wonder that over 100 attempts to legalise assisted suicide in other US states have failed over the last 15 years and that Oregon and Washington remain the only states to have legalised the practice on the basis of a referendum.

Let’s not go there.
(LifeNews.com) Note: Dr. Peter Saunders is a doctor and the CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a British organization with 4,500 doctors and 1,000 medical students as members. This article originally appeared on his blog. He is also associated with the Care Not Killing Alliance in the UK.

Quebec's End-Of-Life Bill Decried As Euthanasia

 

Quebec's end-of-life bill decried as Belgian-style euthanasia
By Deborah Gyapong
Posted: 6/21/2013
OTTAWA, Ontario (CNS) -- Pro-life and other groups joined forces to denounce a bill governing end-of-life care introduced by the Quebec government June 12 as a form of Belgian-style euthanasia.

"This is about doctors lethally injecting patients," said Alex Schadenberg, executive director of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, echoing the concerns of several organizations, including the Catholic Organization for Life.

Schadenberg said the bill redefines palliative care to include "terminal medical sedation" and "medical aid in dying," which he called a euphemism for euthanasia.

The draft legislation, Bill 52, would allow a doctor who receives the repeated consent of a patient to administer medication to cause death. The patient must be a Quebec resident with a valid provincial medicare card.

If the bill becomes law, it will be the first of its kind in Canada to legalize physician-assisted suicide.

Schadenberg urged the Canadian government to challenge the bill. "It's not the jurisdiction of the Quebec government to legalize a form of homicide," he said.

In a statement, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson promised the federal government would "review the implications of Quebec's proposed legislation on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia."

"The laws that prohibit euthanasia and assisted suicide exist to protect all Canadians, including those who are potentially the most vulnerable, such as people who are sick or elderly, and people with disabilities," Nicholson said.

He noted that a Canada Supreme Court decision in 1993 upheld criminal code provisions against assisted suicide. Nicholson also recalled the 2010 vote by a "large majority" of members of the Canadian parliament not to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide.

The Catholic Organization for Life and Family said in a statement that it "radically opposes" the Quebec legislation, describing it as "an unjust bill that will bring about dramatic consequences for all Quebeckers."

"There is nothing humane or compassionate in killing another person," COLF said.

COLF called the bill's "right to end-of-life care" as a "right to euthanasia."

While the legislation lists several requirements that must be met before a patient is deemed eligible for euthanasia, COLF's statement pointed out that a patient does not have to try other treatment options before requesting it. "It will be sufficient for the patient to experience 'constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain which cannot be relieved in a manner the person deems tolerable,'" the statement said.

COLF stressed evidence from Belgium showing the continuing rise in euthanasia from 235 cases in 2003, to 1,133 cases in 2011, according to a 2012 study by the European Institute of Bioethics.

"Euthanasia is gradually becoming a normal and commonplace act that patients are entitled to have," COLF said, quoting the study.

The Physicians Alliance for Total Refusal of Euthanasia and Living with Dignity, a Quebec-based network opposing euthanasia, issued a joint-statement condemning the bill, saying "the government is pushing Quebeckers onto a dangerous path by creating a so-called 'right-to-die.'"

"(The bill) is dangerous, discriminatory and opposed to social justice," said Dr. Marc Beauchamp of the alliance. "At a time when Quebeckers are rightly concerned about the scourge of elder abuse, it would be very naive to think that euthanasia, the ultimate abuse, will not become a growing threat to the most vulnerable."

"Quebeckers already have the right to refuse or discontinue treatment," said Michel Racicot, a retired lawyer and Living with Dignity board member. "They already have the right to say 'no' to overtreatment and to receive effective painkillers, and, if necessary, sedation to reduce their pain. These actions have nothing to do with euthanasia."

"We're trying to legalize euthanasia by confusing people," he added.

While the bill proposes safeguards to protect "free and informed" consent for "medical aid in dying," no safeguards are required for "terminal palliative sedation." Such a step, if undertaken with the intent to kill a patient, is classified as homicide under the criminal code, Racicot explained.

"If you legalize terminal palliative sedation with intent, it is an admission of failure of the Quebec medical system to alleviate pain, whether physical, psychological or moral, and it's a failure of our families to be around those who are at the end of life," he said.

(CNC)

Vermont To Allow Euthanasia In July

Last Month Vermont became the fourth U.S. state to end legal penalties for doctors who prescribe medication to terminally ill patients seeking to end their own lives.

The law, which includes a number of safeguards over the next three years as the state adapts, marked the first time a U.S. state has used the legislative process to make assisted suicide legal. Oregon and Washington have similar laws passed through ballot measures and a Montana court authorized the practice in 2009.

"Vermonters who face terminal illness and are in excruciating pain at the end of their lives now have control over their destinies. This is the right thing to do," said Governor Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, who signed the law on Monday.

Supporters of the practice are hoping Vermont's law will lend momentum in other states, such as Connecticut and New Jersey, that have considered similar legislation. A bill legalizing the practice failed in Massachusetts last year.

The law allows physicians to prescribe death-inducing medications, which terminally ill patients wishing to commit suicide could then administer to themselves. It limits the prescriptions to residents of the state.

"Vermont's law reflects another normalization of the practice of aid in dying in the practice of medicine," said Kathryn Tucker, director of legal affairs at Compassion and Choices, a group that backed the Vermont law. "Support for patients to be empowered and choose aid and dying is growing. So I think this is an important step in moving that forward."

The Vermont bill is more sweeping than the initiatives passed in Oregon or Washington. As in those two states, it provides a number of safeguards - though the Vermont bill calls for these to expire in 2016.
During the first three years, the law requires ailing patients to make three requests for death-inducing drugs. Both the patient's primary physician and a consulting doctor must agree the patient is suffering from a terminal illness and is capable of making an informed decision to request death-inducing drugs.

After July 1, 2016, the practice of prescribing life-ending medication will be overseen by professional practice standards that govern physician conduct in other aspects of medicine.

The two-tiered approach was instituted as a compromise between legislators who preferred Oregon's model of legal safeguards and others who objected to what they saw as government interference in end-of-life decisions.

Advocates of assisted suicide say the practice can save years of suffering for patients of painful terminal illnesses, such as bone cancer. Opponents warn that measures allowing it may encourage people to take their own lives at the behest of potential heirs or because they fear they are imposing a burden on family.

True Dignity Vermont, a group that opposed the Vermont law, said it would work with a network of health care providers to help support alternatives to the terminally ill.

"We now have state-sanctioned suicide in Vermont," said Edward Mahoney, president of the group, in a statement. "If the state won't protect Vermonters, we will try."
(Reuters)