“2. The supposed “safeguards” in PAS laws are an illusion. They include no requirement for psychiatric evaluation or for witnesses to the consumption of the lethal overdose, no medical examiner inquests, no independent safety monitoring board, and no mandatory routine audits of records and documentation. There is no requirement that the prescribing physician has a meaningful long-term patient-physician relationship with the patient seeking assisted suicide and physicians are immunized from ordinary negligence. Additionally, all medical records and documents connected to the provision of assisted suicide are protected from legal discovery or subpoena, ensuring that no investigation is ever likely to take place.”
An excellent powerful read that not only dumps cold water on starving people to death but may extinguish those efforts for now. Bradley
What Other Cultures Can Teach Us About Handling Dementia
In countries like Japan, China and India dementia seems far less stigmatized.
By Richard Gunderman Lily Wolf / About 10 hours ago
Picture two different families, each dealing with a diagnosis of dementia in one of its members. In one case, the patient is a retired executive, whose family tries as long as possible to keep the diagnosis secret, relying primarily on professional caregivers and eventually a nursing home.
In another case, the patient is a grandmother. As soon as the diagnosis is suspected, her family pulls together, bringing her into their home and surrounding her with affection.
These two approaches to dementia reflect very different attitudes toward the disease. One regards it as an irreversible neurologic condition associated with considerable stigma, a problem best left to health professionals and kept out of public view.While not denying that dementia is a medical condition, the other seizes on it as an opportunity to draw together around a loved one in need, giving family members not a secret to keep but an opportunity to care.
In many cultures, maintaining a wide circle of friends and the support of family is seen as the key to aging well.
Courtesy of pxhere
A Disease Of Patients And Their Families
Dementias touch many lives. For example, the most common dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, currently afflicts 5.7 million Americans and is expected to afflict 14 million by 2050. This increase partly mirrors population growth.
But because risk increases with age, the rise also reflects our success in battling other causes of death, such as heart disease and stroke, enabling people to live longer. And the effects of the disease are not confined to patients; 16.1 million Americans now provide uncompensated care to dementia patients.
If you asked a physician to define dementia, most of us would probably describe it as a neurodegenerative disorder marked by declining cognitive abilities and memory. While this account is true as far as it goes, there is a problem: attacking most types of dementia as strictly biological entities has largely failed to advance our ability to diagnose and treat it.
In the case of Alzheimer’s disease, definitive diagnosis still requires a biopsy, and new drugs to prevent, retard, or reverse it have proved disappointing.
A Cultural Perspective
Perhaps the time has come to expand our thinking about dementia to encompass not only cellular but cultural perspectives. Our society needs to recognize that dementia is not only a brain disorder of the person suffering from it but also a social disorder that can be understood in a variety of different ways. In other contexts, such disorders tend to be viewed in light of a larger circle of social relationships and cultural traditions. All generalizations must be qualified, but we have much to learn from other cultures.
In Japan, for example, to age well is not only to avoid contracting diseases but also to maintain a circle of family and friends right up to the moment when we breathe our last. Being of sound mind and body means continuing to exert ourselves both mentally and physically, remaining deeply invested in our personal relationships and receiving help from and helping others.
So long as we continue to enrich others’ lives, we can remain “whole” in ways that exceed the mere absence of a medical diagnosis.
A large segment of traditional Chinese culture tends to see such matters similarly. Confucianism places a premium on family, and the decline of cognitive capacities of those who have led long and full lives can be seen not as the onset of a disease but as an opportunity for friends and family to express how much they care. Assuming increasing responsibility for an aging loved one represents an opportunity to show how strong the family really is.
The Hindu culture of India also prizes the opportunity to care for parents. What Americans tend to regard as a lamentable medical condition can be seen as a part of life’s natural cycle and the passage into a second childhood.
The emphasis is not on the stigma of dementia, but rather on a withdrawal from worldly affairs to focus on other more essential matters. When an older person begins to show such signs, it is time for a natural transfer of authority to younger members of the family.
Seeing Dementia Anew
Viewing dementia from the standpoint of other cultures can help Americans see it with fresh eyes and re-pose fundamental questions that lie at its heart.
What, for example, is a person, and how is personhood situated in the larger context of family and community? How does such a condition relate to what it means to be a good person and lead a good life? To what degree does dementia fracture us and what are the possibilities that it could bring us closer together?
The point of such a cultural approach is not to argue that biomedical accounts of dementia are fundamentally wrong. In virtually any disease state, but especially with a condition such as dementia, the experience of patients and families involves social, moral, and even spiritual perspectives, no less than biological ones.
Perhaps because of our high regard for self-sufficiency and independence, dementia in the U.S. it tends to be relatively stigmatized.
Conceiving of dementia in different terms could offer new opportunities for prevention and treatment. Suppose, for example, that we Americans viewed it in terms similar to physical fitness. If we do not utilize our mental, physical, and social capacities, they will tend to dwindle – use it or lose it.
On the other hand, if we remain active and challenged in each of these spheres, contributing where we can to enrich the lives of others, we can ease the strain of dementia in our lives.
To be sure, healthy neurons require adequate rest, nutrition, and even medical care. But the health of a person is more than the functioning of cells.
People also need opportunities to put abilities to the test, connect with others, and lead lives that make a real contribution. If we tend not only to our neurons but also our intellects, characters, and relationships, there is good reason to think that we can lighten dementia’s burden and make the most of the opportunities to care for those living with it.
This story was originally published by The Conversation.
Thoughts on this or any other story? Write a Letter to the Editor. Send to firstname.lastname@example.org and put Letter in the subject line. 200 words max. You need to use your name and city and include a contact phone for verification purposes. And you can still comment on stories on our Facebook page.
About the Authors
Richard Gunderman is the Chancellor’s Professor of Medicine, Liberal Arts, and Philanthropy at Indiana University.
Use the RSS feed to subscribe to Richard Gunderman’s posts today
Lily Wolf is a medical student at Indiana University School of Medicine.
Use the RSS feed to subscribe to Lily Wolf’s posts
By Margaret K. Dore, Esq.
Since the passage of Oregon’s law allowing physician-assisted suicide, other suicides in Oregon have steadily increased. This is consistent with a suicide contagion in which the legalization of physician-assisted suicides has encouraged other suicides. In Oregon, the financial and emotional impacts of suicide on family members and the broader community are devastating and long-lasting.
A. Suicide is Contagious
It is well known that suicide is contagious. A famous example is Marilyn Monroe. Her widely reported suicide was followed by “a spate of suicides.”
With the understanding that suicide is contagious, groups such as the National Institute of Mental Health and the World Health Organization have developed guidelines for the responsible reporting of suicide, to prevent contagion. Key points include that the risk of additional suicides increases:
[W]hen the story explicitly describes the suicide method, uses dramatic/graphic headlines or images, and repeated/extensive coverage sensationalizes or glamorizes a death.
B. Physician-Assisted Suicide in Oregon
In Oregon, prominent cases of physician-assisted suicide include Lovelle Svart and Brittany Maynard.
Lovelle Svart died in 2007. The Oregonian, which is Oregon’s largest paper, violated the recommended guidelines for the responsible reporting of suicide by explicitly describing her suicide method and by employing “dramatic/graphic images.” Indeed, visitors to the paper’s website were invited “to hear and see when Lovelle swallowed the fatal dose.” Today, ten years later, there are still photos of her online, lying in bed, dying.
Brittany Maynard reportedly died from physician-assisted suicide in Oregon, on November 1, 2014. Contrary to the recommended guidelines, there was “repeated/extensive coverage” in multiple media, worldwide. This coverage is ongoing, albeit on a smaller and less intense scale.
C. The Young Man Wanted to Die Like Brittany Maynard
A month after Ms. Maynard’s death, Dr. Will Johnston was presented with a twenty year old patient during an emergency appointment. The young man, who had been brought in by his mother, was physically healthy, but had been acting oddly and talking about death.
Dr. Johnston asked the young man if he had a plan. The young man said “yes,” that he had watched a video about Ms. Maynard. He said that he was very impressed with her and that he identified with her and that he thought it was a good idea for him to die like her. He also told Dr. Johnston that after watching the video he had been surfing the internet looking for suicide drugs. Dr. Johnston’s declaration states:
He was actively suicidal and agreed to go to the hospital, where he stayed for five weeks until it was determined that he was sufficiently safe from self-harm to go home.
The young man had wanted to die like Brittany Maynard.
D. In Oregon, Other Suicides Have Increased with Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide
Oregon government reports show the following positive correlation between the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and an increase in other suicides. Per the reports:
Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide “in late 1997.”
By 2000, Oregon’s conventional suicide rate was “increasing significantly.”
By 2007, Oregon’s conventional suicide rate was 35% above the national average.
By 2010, Oregon’s conventional suicide rate was 41% above the national average.
By 2012, Oregon’s conventional suicide rate was 42% above the national average.
By 2014, Oregon’s conventional suicide rate was 43.1% higher than the national average.
E. The Financial and Emotional Cost of Suicide in Oregon
Oregon’s report for 2012 describes the cost of suicide as “enormous.” The report states:
Suicide is the second leading cause of death among Oregonians aged 15 to 34 years, and the eighth leading cause of death among all ages in Oregon. The cost of suicide is enormous. In 201 alone, self-inflicted injury hospitalization charges in Oregon exceeded $54 million; and the estimate of total lifetime cost of suicide in Oregon was over $677 million. The loss to families and communities broadens the impact of each death. (footnotes omitted).
F. The Significance for Montana
In Montana, the law on assisted suicide is governed by the Montana Supreme Court decision, Baxter v. State, 354 Mont. 234 (2009). Baxter gives doctors who assist a suicide a potential defense to criminal prosecution. Baxter does not legalize assisted suicide by giving doctors or anyone else immunity.
The decision, however, is also confusing so that it can be read different ways. More importantly, some doctors are claiming to have assisted suicides in Montana. If nothing is done to clarify the law, there will at some point be de facto legality.
Montana already has a higher suicide rate than Oregon. If Baxter is not overturned and/or the law clarified that assisted suicide is not legal, the suicide problem in Montana will only get worse. Montana does not need the Oregon experience.
 Shen X., Millet L., Suicides in Oregon: Trends and Associated Factors. 2003-2012, Oregon Health Authority, Portland Oregon, p.3, Executive Summary.
 Margot Sanger-Katz, “The Science Behind Suicide Contagion,” The New York Times, August 13, 2014.
 “Recommendations for Reporting on Suicide,” The National Institute of Mental Health. See also “Preventing Suicide: A Resource for Media Professionals,” World Health Organization, at http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/resource_media.pdf.
 Ed Madrid, “Lovelle Svart, 1945 – 2007, The Oregonian, September 28, 2007.
 The still shots at this link, are still up today, July 7, 2017.
 The worldwide coverage of Ms. Maynard in multiple media started with an exclusive cover story in People Magazine. Other coverage has included TV, radio, print, web and social media.
 Declaration of Williard Johnston, MD, May 24, 2015.
 Oregon’s Death with Dignity report for 2016, p. 4, first line.
 Oregon Health Authority News Release, September 9, 2010, at https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/news-release-09-09-10.pdf (“After decreasing in the 1990s, suicide rates have been increasing significantly since 2000”).
 Suicides in Oregon: Trend and Risk Factors, issued September 2010 (data through 2007).
 Suicides in Oregon: Trends and Risk Factors, 2012 Report (data through 2010).
 Suicides in Oregon: Trends and Associated Factors, 2003-2012 (data through 2012).
 Oregon Vital Statistics Report 2015 (data through 2014;
at page 6-26, third full paragraph)
 See https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/suicides-in-oregon-2003-2012-p-6.pdf
 Greg Jackson, Esq. & Matt Bowman, Esq., “Analysis of Implications of the Baxter Case on Potential Criminal Liability,” April 2010.
 State Senator Jim Shockley and Margaret Dore, Esq., “No, physician-assisted suicide is not legal in Montana: It’s a recipe for elder abuse and more,” The Montana Lawyer,” The State Bar of Montana, November 2011.
 CDC Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, “QuickStats: Age Adjusted Suicide Rates by State, United States, 2012,” published on November 14, 2014.
The for profit euthanasia monopoly has the same roots. They share staff, managers and board members with Planned Parenthood. Bradley Williams
Following is the text. For the illustrations and U-tube links click on the following link to article.
The media seems to be doing an effective job of rightfully condemning many people who have an association with the Ku Klux Klan — but one exception to this seems to be Planned Parenthood’s “beloved” founder, Margaret Sanger. Margaret Sanger is usually described as a “birth control pioneer” who founded Planned Parenthood, but she also met with members of the Klan, advocated eugenics, and supported the use of sterilization to rid the planet of the “unfit.” Sanger wrote about her meeting with the Klan in her autobiography. Yet somehow this fact is made light of, glossed over, or completely ignored by the media.
On page 366 of her autobiography, Sanger described her meeting with the Klan, where she says she received additional invitations to speak with similar groups:
I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…. I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses…. I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak…. In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered. What about Sanger’s outspoken support for eugenics?
While some may not be entirely familiar with the meaning of “eugenics,” it’s likely that those same people have seen it in action in various ways. Coined in the mid 1800’s by Francis Galton, the cousin of Charles Darwin, eugenics was a popular movement to create a society in which those who were considered “superior” would reproduce… while those who were deemed “inferior” would be encouraged not to reproduce. Tragically, this movement was credited with forcefully sterilizing many men and women. The targets of these horrendous acts were disproportionately Black and poor, according to many reports.
Eugenics victim Elaine Riddick speaks in the video below about being “cut up like a hog,” thanks to the philosophy of eugenics. Riddick, like some other Black citizens, was forcibly sterilized in North Carolina in 1968. Her tearful testimony encouraged state lawmakers to vote for reparations for those like her, who were eugenically sterilized.
So how does this relate to Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger? One of the prominent supporters of that horrific eugenics program was Clarence Gamble, and Gamble was a director of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League, which later changed its name to Planned Parenthood.
In Margaret Sanger’s “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” the Planned Parenthood founder links the goals of eugenics with her own goals of promoting birth control, writing (emphasis added):
We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health. …While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit… Eugenics without Birth Control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit….
Sanger called for unfit to be sent to farms (Image credit Maafa21)
Sanger was highly motivated to stop the procreation by those she deemed “unfit.” In a personal letter to Katharine Dexter McCormick in 1950, Sanger called for “a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people.”
But, Sanger added, “Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.”
In 1932, Sanger also called for those who were poor (and those she considered to be “morons and immoral”) to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called better “moral conduct.” She specifically wanted to keep “immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race.” (“A Plan for Peace,” by Margaret Sanger, published in Birth Control Review (BCR) April 1932, pp. 107-108)
Sanger was more than just a passive observer where eugenics was concerned; she was a member of the American Eugenics Society and even tried to unite her efforts and her publication with the eugenics movement.
efforts and her publication with the eugenics movement.
This image below captures a letter entitled, “Shall the Birth Control Review be combined with a Eugenics Magazine?” written by Sanger. It was published in the June 1928 edition of her Birth Control Review and it details her meeting (page 188) with American Eugenics Society representative, Leon Whitney, to merge her publication with that of the Eugenics Society. Whitney was the former Executive Secretary of the American Eugenics Society (AES) and Sanger published his writings in the Birth Control Review (BCR).
Of interest is that fact that, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler was so influenced by Whitney that he sent him a letter complimenting him for a book he had written on sterilization.
Margaret Sanger writes to merge ABCL with Eugenics
The New York Times recorded Sanger’s desire to unite with the eugenics movement as well, in an April 1, 1925, article:
Mrs. Margaret Sanger, founder of the American Birth Control League [ABCL], said that the league was ready to unite with the eugenic movement whenever the eugenists were able to present a definite program of standards for parenthood on a eugenic basis, rather than a eugenic ideal.
Another example where Sanger’s desire to unite with the eugenics movement can be seen is in this ABCL publication from 1935 (below), calling for a resolution that Sanger’s American Birth Control League (which later became Planned Parenthood), “unite with the American Eugenics Society.”
Sanger resolution to merge BCR with Eugenics
Sanger made certain that eugenics movers and shakers were deeply embedded in her organization, as Live Action News has previously documented. Below is a sample list of American Eugenics Society founders, leaders, and members who were a part of Margaret Sanger’s board or organizations:
American Eugenics Society members on Margaret Sanger’s Board (Image credit: Maafa21)
In addition to Sanger’s connections, Live Action News has documented that many of Planned Parenthood’s officials were members or leaders of the American Eugenics Society. (See a partial list here.)
PP’s Margaret Sanger Award
Since the 1960’s, Planned Parenthood has granted its infamous Margaret Sanger Award (calling it their top award) to people who benefit the organization’s cause.
Probably the most well-known recipient of the Margaret Sanger award in more recent times is Hillary Clinton, who said during her acceptance of the award that she “admired Margaret Sanger.” Republicans called her out for her comments, and Clinton responded by making disparaging remarks about Thomas Jefferson instead of repudiating Sanger’s push to eradicate the “unfit.” In the video below, Clinton pays homage to Sanger:
In 2014, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi accepted the Margaret Sanger award, despite Sanger’s clear support for a hideous eugenic philosophy and associations with the Klan. Pelosi referred to the largest abortion corporation in the nation as an “outstanding organization,” suggesting that Sanger’s philosophy paved the ideology behind Planned Parenthood: “Out of this philosophy and outlook emerged the spirit and driving force of what would become known as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.” Pelosi added, “To be associated with the great Margaret Sanger is a distinct privilege.”
Nancy Pelosi receives Margaret Sanger Award
In 2004, the founder of CNN, Ted Turner, received the Margaret Sanger Award. The “honor” was mentioned in Planned Parenthood’s 2004 annual report:
Margaret Sanger award to Ted Turner CNN
Today, Planned Parenthood will defend their founder by pointing to civil rights giants like Martin Luther King, Jr., who also received the Margaret Sanger award. But the full picture and agenda of Sanger and her Planned Parenthood organization were not obvious to many in the Black community at that time, including MLK.
The for profit euthanasia monopoly has the same roots. They share staff, managers and board members with Planned Parenthood. Bradley Williams
If you liked the concept of assisted suicide consider the following:
Shocking report: UK patients killed ‘if a nurse didn’t like you’
June 26, 2018 (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) – More details are emerging of the scandal in which at least 450, and probably more than 650, people’s lives were ended as a result of being given dangerous amounts of unnecessary opiates.
The report of The Gosport Independent Panel into Gosport War Memorial Hospital found that only 45% of those administered terminal quantities of diamorphine (which can be appropriate in alleviating severe pain at the very end of life) were said to be in pain. Many of the case studies showed that even where pain was noted, it was not properly assessed, and the effect of medication was not monitored.
In 29% of cases, no reason or rationale was given for prescribing the lethal doses. In 26%, reasons were given that would “rarely, if ever, be regarded as appropriate indications,” such as deterioration, distress, or agitation.
Nurses euthanising difficult patients
Writing in the Times, Dominic Lawson points out that “the ones most likely to get the treatment appeared to be not the sickest, but the most ‘difficult’. As the stepson of one of the victims remarked: ‘If a nurse didn’t like you, you were a goner.'”
This is clear from the testimony of whistle-blower Pauline Spilker, who said: “It appeared to me then and more so now that euthanasia was practised by the nursing staff. I cannot offer an explanation as to why I did not challenge what I saw at that time . . . I feel incredibly guilty.”
In addition to the case she described of an 80 year old man who was active and mentally alert but “difficult” there were other cases of tricky patients being quietened with non-clinically indicated opiates. Dr Barton, who was responsible for the prescribing on the wards, defended the use of diamorphine on a lady with dementia who was “not [in] physical pain but not happy, not comfortable, not easy to look after.” Commenting on a report condoning her actions, the panel said: “This is an extraordinary conclusion, explicitly condoning the use of large doses of diamorphine simply to control symptoms of confusion and agitation, contrary to all relevant guidance.”
Patient with learning difficulties killed
Dominic Lawson highlights a case that he, as the father of an adult with Down’s syndrome, finds particularly shocking – that of 78-year-old Ethel Thurston, who had learning difficulties, and was admitted with a fractured femur.
At another hospital, the doctor assessed her as having the “physical potential to remobilise” and she was admitted to Gosport War Memorial Hospital for rehabilitation, care and mobilisation. Within days, Dr Barton wrote on her notes “please keep comfortable. I am happy for nursing staff to confirm death.” These euphemistic words appeared on many patients’ records, despite them for the most part being admitted for respite or rehabilitation, not end of life care. The panel also found that the medical team were putting patients onto end of life pathways without proper consultation with them or their families. (Concerns over practices such as these have been raised in the last few years in connection with the now infamous Liverpool Care Pathway and its successors.)
Where have we seen this before?
Miss Thurston was put on high doses of diamorphine and midazolam (the panel noted that the “starting dose of diamorphine was excessive, at least three times the recommended dose equivalent” and it could find no clinical indication for the drugs at all) and died seven hours later.
The cause was said to be “bronchopneumonia”. Almost all these deaths were attributed to pneumonia, without any further explanation.
As Dominic Lawson notes: “Exactly the same cause of death was routinely given by those doctors involved in the ‘life-shortening’ of the mentally incapacitated in Germany in 1939-41.”
Published with permission from Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.
California made a mistake by legalizing assisted suicide, but now it has a chance to correct its error. California’s assisted suicide law was overturned by Judge Daniel Ottolia because the legislative process was not properly followed. If Judge Ottolia’s ruling stands, it will be a great protection for people with terminal illness, economic disadvantage, and especially people with disabilities.
But California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is appealing Judge Ottolia’s ruling in an effort to once again make assisted suicide legal in California. It is disappointing to see the person responsible for upholding the rule of law and the state’s constitution, defending an illegally passed law. No matter the procedural problem this court decision is based upon, disability rights advocates are opposed to assisted suicide laws because they have harmful impacts on people with disabilities.
Contrary to much of the rhetoric surrounding this debate, pain is not the top reason cited in most cases of assisted suicide. The California law is virtually the same as Oregon’s, the first assisted suicide law in the U.S. According to a recent report by the Oregon Public Health Division, the top five reasons for requesting suicide drugs by the patients were: ..see link above…
Now is the time for the for profit euthanasia monopoly to clean up their act.
Correction there is no medical supervision or witness required at the time of the flaunted “self administration “ in the US.
The laws/bills that the international euthanasia monopoly crafts are not OK. Amending the CA euthanasia law is sorely needed (and OR, WA, CO and HI). Even as they proclaimed that the poison must be self-administered to divert normal scrutiny they did not provide for an ordinary witness. The difference is that without a witness it allows predators to force euthanasia but with a witness they would up hold individual choice.
Amendments would include not allowing an heir to be part of the process, requiring a witness to self-administration, restore the illegality of falsifying the death certificate, require the posting of the poison applied in the medical record, register organ/tissue trafficking, reveal commissions and memorials paid to the corporate facilitators to guard against the profiteering that is of public record in the industry. Bradley Williams
Thank you for your press release regarding increased suicide rates in the US. Please consider the following factors not mentioned in the release.
1. The release discusses rising suicide rates begining in 1999. Oregon’s assisted suicide law, legitimizing and encouraging suicide, had gone into effect just two years prior, in late 1997.
Local media then glorified assisted suicide deaths, for example, of Lovelle Svart, who was filmed taking the lethal dose and then dying at a suicide party. Indeed, local media encouraged readers to both listen and watch as Ms. Svart drank the lethal dose.
2. The suicide rates reported by the CDC leave out deaths due to legal assisted suicide, which by state law are reported as natural deaths. More to the point, the CDC suicide statistics are understated.
3. I work against assisted suicide legalization, so that my name is out there regarding the topic. So far, I have had four actively suicidal people contact me to use legal assisted suicide. The first three were all physicially healthy men, aged late 20’s, to 50. The fourth said that he/she had health issues.
4. There is evidence of suicide contagion in Oregon:
Since the passage of Oregon’s law allowing physician-assisted suicide, other suicides in Oregon have steadily increased. This is consistent with a suicide contagion in which the mere legalization of physician-assisted suicide has encouraged other suicides. See here.
Please feel free to contact me for additonal information. Thank you again for the press release.
Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA
Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, PS
1001 4th Avenue, Suite 4400
Seattle, WA 98154
206 697 1217
Not Dead Yet News & Commentary
John Oliver Takes on Guardianship Abuse
Posted: 06 Jun 2018 03:20 PM PDT
For anyone unfamiliar with the show, HBO’s “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver” features in-depth, dark – and often viciously humorous takes on important news. The last show shared the often dark and abusive sides of guardianship in the USA:
This video is captioned. Three things about the captioning:
The captioning is mostly accurate;
John Oliver is a very fast talker – as a consequence, the captioning sometimes flies by quickly;
For some reason, every expletive spoken is deleted from the captioning.
I recommend watching it and sharing it. While you’ll laugh in places, it’s a serious take on a serious topic – the rampant exploitation of people who lose their rights to control their own lives.
There is a tendency not to study legislation but the euthanasia monopoly purposefully conflates all facets to confuse legislators and the public with the inference that it is all or nothing: “Don’t you want your end of life choices?”. This is a very deliberate tactic to deceive the public that in any other business would be false advertising. All is documented in this digital era. Time to call their non profit status “BS” and charge them for false advertising. This is true the world around from Montana to New Zealand. Bradley Williams
“”Last year we commissioned a poll to test the public’s understanding of the euphemism “assisted dying” which has been used in most local opinion polls.
Here’s our media release:
A new Curia Market Research poll shows New Zealanders are confused about what ‘assisted dying’ even means.
“This groundbreaking poll challenges the validity of most other polls on the issue. It shows that support for euphemisms such as ‘assisted dying’, ‘aid in dying’ or ‘assistance to end their life’ should not be taken as support for a law change,” says Renée Joubert, executive officer of Euthanasia-Free NZ.
The more strongly a person supports ‘assisted dying’, the more likely they are confused about what it includes.
Of those who strongly support ‘assisted dying’:
· 85% thought it includes turning off life support
· 79% thought it includes ‘do not resuscitate’ (no CPR) requests
· 67% thought it includes the stopping of medical tests, treatments and surgeries.
In all three cases a person would die from their underlying medical condition – of natural causes.
These ‘end-of-life choices’ are legal and people can make their wishes known via Advance Care Planning.
Dr Amanda Landers is a palliative care doctor in the South Island, caring for people with a range of life-limiting conditions. She also gives presentations to nurses, doctors and the general public.
She says that many patients, and even some doctors, are unaware that stopping life-prolonging treatment and medication is legal and ethically acceptable. This means the person dies from their underlying illness – which is completely different from an intervention which deliberately ends their life prematurely.
“I was caring for a man in his 60s who was on peritoneal dialysis. He thought he would be committing euthanasia/suicide by stopping it. This belief was weighing heavily on his mind as he thought it was morally wrong.
“Once I explained to him that stopping dialysis was acceptable and that it would allow a natural death from his underlying illness, he stopped it.
“His family was unaware of his fears of dying by suicide/euthanasia and that he wanted to stop the dialysis. It was a very emotional moment for them when they heard how he was feeling, but ultimately they supported him in his choice.”
ACT MP David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill proposes ‘assisted dying’ by administering drugs to end someone’s life, either by injection or ingestion through a tube (euthanasia) or by giving a lethal dose to a person to swallow or administer (assisted suicide).
There are subtle differences between suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia: It’s suicide when a person ends their own life. It’s assisted suicide when a person receives help to access the means to end their life but then takes the final action themselves. It’s euthanasia when the final action is performed by another person.
Only 62% of the 894 respondents polled thought that ‘assisted dying’ includes receiving deadly drugs to swallow or self-administer (assisted suicide).
Only 68% of respondents thought that ‘assisted dying’ includes receiving deadly drugs by injection (euthanasia).
New Zealanders are significantly less supportive of the administration of lethal drugs to end someone’s life than the notion of ‘assisted dying’ as a whole.
After hearing which practices the proposed Bill would be limited to, support for ‘assisted dying’ dropped from 62% to 55%, opposition rose from 22% to 26% and unsure/refuse responses rose from 6% to 11%.
“We would expect public support to drop even further when people consider the wider implications and unintended consequences of euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation,” says Ms Joubert.
“A case in point is a 2014 UK ComRes poll which showed that public support for the Falconer Assisted Dying Bill dropped as low as 43% when people heard various arguments against changing the law or were provided with certain facts – for example the fact that six out of ten people requesting a lethal prescription in Washington State said a reason for doing so was their concern about being a burden on friends, family or caregivers.”
Read the bill
Concept polls do not reflect reality. After interviewing the public for over 60 days at information booths across Montana I take exception to the push polls. Yes 60%, of even the religious, favor the concept as shown by Gallup, then 95% change to not-in-favor after they learn how easily the laws can be wrongly administered saying “I’m not for that”. Risking us all, all ages, to be exploited by predatory corporations and predatory new best friends or heirs.
Read the language of the laws to decern the double speak, omissions and commissions to reveal the normalized, the exploited, the expended, the euthanized..
President MTaas org
The same condition is the world round: see New Zealand,
By Maggie Barry, National Party MP
As deputy chairwoman of the justice select committee, I’ve been listening to some very well considered submissions on the controversial euthanasia and assisted suicide bill before Parliament.
There were 36,000 individuals and groups who wrote to Parliament with their views on the End of Life Choice Bill. Ten per cent have indicated that they would like to be heard in person, which the committee has promised to do.
So we have extended the reporting deadline from September to next March. While I will listen attentively and respectfully to everyone’s viewpoint, I remain concerned at the lack of adequate safeguards to protect our most vulnerable. A troubling aspect emerging from the public discussions is the large number of people who say they are in favour of the bill but who admit that they have not actually read it, claiming they don’t care about the detail, they just want to have the option.
Have you ever heard of anyone who did not want to die with dignity or be treated with compassion? Rather than being lulled by the wording around this poorly drafted bill, I’ve been urging people to delve deeper – it’s vital to know the details when stakes are so high and protections for the vulnerable so low.
Many incorrectly assume the law only applies to the terminally ill, but it would actually licence doctors to end the life of anyone with a “grievous, irremediable condition”.
That vague phrase is not an accepted medical or legal one and leaves the door open for coercion and abuse, and could potentially extend to include people with long-term conditions such as arthritis, dementia and diabetes as it has in other countries that have opened the door to euthanasia.
I do not want New Zealand to become a country where vulnerable dementia sufferers or disabled people are not valued and become even more susceptible to pressure from society to end their lives prematurely. I share in the concerns of Disability Rights Commissioner Paula Tesoriero, who said the bill “undermines the position of disabled and vulnerable members of our community. It devalues their lives and poses significant risk to them.”
During my time as Minister for Seniors, I was very aware of the growing problem of elder abuse – one in 10 New Zealanders over 65 experiences physical, psychological and emotional violence every year. Unfortunately, three quarters of abusers are family members.
If this extremely liberal bill was to pass, it is not hard to imagine that some of those 70,000 abused seniors could be coerced or pressured into ending their lives prematurely.
I understand the concerns of the medical profession and I support the position taken by the majority of health professionals who are ethically opposed to killing their patients. Terminating another person’s life goes against everything a medical professional trains for.
Instead of changing the Crimes Act to allow culpable homicide and assisted suicide, I believe the answer is to ensure all New Zealanders have access to top-quality palliative care wherever and whenever they need it.
As a former patron of Mary Potter Hospice and Hospice NZ, and chairwoman of a government working party on the care of people who are dying, I believe the compassionate solution is to ensure we all have the choice of accessing world-class palliative care to ensure we can all die with dignity.
That is why I’ve drafted a member’s bill, currently in the ballot, which would amend the Health and Disability Act to enshrine universal access to palliative care as a right for all New Zealanders. It would place obligations on health boards and the minister to develop strategies for the provision of high quality end-of-life care to all who need it.
To view Maggie Barry’s Access to Palliative Care Bill, please visit: https://maggiebarry.national.org.nz/
End of Life Choice Bill – Public Meeting
Tuesday, May 29 ; 5.30pm to 7.30pm
Whanganui Central Baptist Church
285 Wicksteed St, Whanganui
Sent from my iPhone