By Xavier Symons, BioEdge
Evidence of gross negligence is mounting against Belgium’s top euthanasia regulatory body, the Federal Commission for Euthanasia Control and Evaluation.
Dr. Ludo Van Opdenbosch, a neurologist who was a Commission member for several years, resigned in September 2017. Associated Press recently obtained the letter of resignation that Dr. Van Opdenbosch sent to senior politicians, which details his dissatisfaction with the oversight processes of the Commission. "I do not want to be part of a committee that deliberately violates the law," he wrote.Read more
By Xavier Symons, BioEdge
Editor’s Note: Apparently you no longer own your own organs, your own body, but it is first considered to belong to the state. Combined with euthanasia and assisted suicide legalization, it turns the weak, vulnerable, and elderly into a chattel class.
The Netherlands has joined Belgium and Spain in adopting “opt-out” organ donation legislation.
Earlier this week the Dutch parliament narrowly passed a bill that requires every person over the age of 18 to notify government officials if they do not want to be an organ donor.
By Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Last month, a concerned Swedish citizen wrote – Oregon Health Authority Reveals Hidden Problems with the Oregon Assisted Suicide model.
Fabian Stahle became concerned with the Oregon assisted suicide model after the Swedish National Council on Medical Ethics published the report, “Assisted death: A Knowledge Compilation,” which supported the legalization of “Oregon Model” assisted suicide.
Stahle communicated by email (December 2017) with Craig New, an analyst for the Oregon Health Authority. Stahle learned from New that the definition of “terminal disease” used by the Oregon Health Authority was wider than the basic definition of terminal disease. New confirmed that people who are chronically ill can be approved for assisted suicide in Oregon, even if they do have a terminal disease, if they refuse effective treatment.Read more
By Anne Fox, President of Massachusetts Citizens for Life
Mark Rollo, with the help of Massachusetts Alliance Against Doctor Prescribed Suicide, organized an amazing Doctors' Day at the State House on January 31. Mark; Dr Thomas Sullivan, Past President of the Mass. Medical Society; and Dr Laura Petrillo, a palliative care doctor and teacher at Mass General, addressed legislators and aides and then held a press conference. The speeches are found below.
After that, the 22 doctors in attendance visited with members of the Joint Health Care Committee to explain that the recent decision of the Mass. Medical Society to go "neutral" on doctor-prescribed suicide does not represent many doctors and to tell the members of the problems with the bills.
It was an amazing group of doctors who are to be thanked for coming out in the middle of the day for such an important cause.
By Kris Correia, co-chair of Witness for Life
As is usually the case with life issues, each side seems to talk a different language. The same is true in the debate on doctor-prescribed suicide (DPS). From those of us who oppose DPS we hear that “all life has dignity” while from those who support the practice we hear about “death with dignity.” What is the difference?
Dignity comes in two forms based on its origin—intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic dignity comes from within ourselves simply because we are human persons. All human life has dignity, from the moment of conception until the moment of death. No one can say, “These lives have dignity and those lives don’t.” We view every human person, despite any differences in race, belief, ability, or lifestyle, with equal dignity. That means no one life is better or more important than another when it comes to protecting lives. From this concept arises altruism, as well as other fundamental principles such as all men being created equal and having equal protection under the law. This concept informs our long-held prohibitions against not only murder but also suicide, for intrinsic dignity cannot be taken away by anyone, not even by us from ourselves.Read more
The following article originally appeared in the Winter 2017 issue of the MCFL News magazine, a perk of membership mailed out quarterly to all members.
It has only been two years since Canada's Supreme Court decriminalized doctor-prescribed suicide (DPS) and euthanasia, but Canadian courts and legislatures are already entertaining proposals to expand the eligibility criteria to vulnerable populations that include children, persons with Alzheimer's disease, and those unable to give voluntary consent. Some doctors are even refusing to treat survivors of failed suicide attempts.
After the passage of Bill C-14 in 2015, legislators were given two years in which to decide how the practice should be regulated. Currently, an adult with a “serious and incurable illness, disease or disability,” experiencing intolerable “physical or psychological suffering,” may request DPS or euthanasia if their natural death is “reasonably foreseeable.” Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, said that Health Canada’s report on assisted dying says that there were 1,982 reported deaths in the first year after legalization.
If the United States, with a population roughly nine times that of Canada, euthanized its vulnerable citizens at the same rate, almost 18,000 Americans would be dead.Read more
By Helen Cross, Editor of MCFL Magazine
With its leather chairs, dark wooden table curving into an impressive arc, and the podium proclaiming "United States Senate," the Caucus Room in the Dirksen Senate Building is an imposing venue. On a bright sunny, windless, and mild day in Washington, D.C. Prof. Michael Pakaluk of Catholic University of America began the MCFL Caucus by tracing the continuum from contraception and abortion using Supreme Court decisions in Griswold, Roe, and Casey. Contraception severs the unitive and procreative aspects of conjugal union. "If there is a 'right to contraception' then abortion is the sole solution when an unwanted child is conceived," Pakaluk said. (The complete text of Prof. Pakaluk’s text is available.)Read more
By John B. Kelly, Director of Second Thoughts Massachusetts
In a complete about-face, in early December, the Massachusetts Medical Society gave state legislators the nod to enact dangerous public policy that puts my life and the lives of thousands of others in Massachusetts at risk. The medical society rescinded its longstanding opposition to assisted suicide, commonly held with the American Medical Association, that assisted suicide “would ultimately cause more harm than good” and is “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer.”
Overturning this policy puts pressure on the Joint Committee on Public Health, which is now considering identical assisted suicide bills, H.1194 and S.1225. The committee, which has killed seven previous bills, should continue to reject assisted suicide as simply too dangerous for the people of Massachusetts.Read more
Did the Mass. Medical Society “neutrality” vote on doctor-prescribed suicide really represent Mass. doctors?
By Kris Correia, co-chair of Witness for Life
In September, the Massachusetts Medical Society (MMS) surveyed its 22,500 members regarding doctor-prescribed suicide (DPS). They say that because of that survey, the MMS decided to “rescinded its longstanding opposition to physician assisted suicide,” and to adopt a position of “neutral engagement.” But is that consistent with the survey results?Read more
By Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
Fabian Stahle, a Swede who opposes euthanasia, sent the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition an article revealing the hidden problems with the Oregon Assisted Suicide model.
Stahle read the Swedish report and noticed a quote from Professor Linda Ganzini, from Oregon, who stated that the six-month expected survival time applies,
“if no treatment is given to slow down the course of the disease.”