Nominations for any position on the executive of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition BC can be mailed or faxed to the secretary, Dr. Toni Parsons, at the above address and must be postmarked no later than January 31, 2000.

TOP

Although practised for many years in the Netherlands, the fact that euthanasia was still a crime gave some protection to vulnerable people and threat of prosecution to doctors. Now that it is legal the practice receives an additional strong stamp of approval.

Calls for legalised euthanasia stress the need for safeguards. It is obvious from the Dutch experience that safeguards do not work. The Netherlands has gone from euthanasia for terminal illness to chronic illness to psychological distress to no illness at all. A doctor in Holland was recently acquitted for killing an elderly man who was "tired of life" but had no physical or mental illness. And hospice care has failed to develop in the presence of the killing option. According to a February 1999 report in the Journal of Medical Ethics, 20% of Dutch euthanasia cases are done without the patient's request and 60% of euthanasia cases were not reported. The only acceptable safeguard is to keep euthanasia illegal. Once the door to legalised killing is opened there will be no way to stop it.

Canada should continue to reject legalised killing. Senate hearings earlier this year strongly urged the Canadian government to provide improved end-of-life care. The 1995 Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Report conducted a thorough study into this issue in Canada. The resulting report, Of Life and Death, recommended that Criminal Code prohibitions on active euthanasia and assisted suicide be maintained. A Subcommittee revisiting this report earlier this year gave no recommendation to legalise assisted suicide.

Canada has a tradition of working together to build a caring, compassionate and just society. This tradition includes caring for and loving each disabled, sick and dying member of our community. Compassion means literally "to suffer alongside". Are we a compassionate society? Then we do not kill weak, disabled, sick people.

 Euthanasia Symposium

Saturday, April 29, 2000 — (10 am - 5 pm)

Regal Constellation Hotel - 900 Dixon Rd. Toronto, Ontario M9W 1J7

Sponsored by: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of Ontario, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of BC, Canadian Physicians for Life, Campaign Life Coalition and Alliance for Life Ontario.

Registration is $50 in advance and $60 at the door. Please register in advance.

Register by contacting the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of Ontario at: 247 Grey Street, London, ON N6B 1G4 Tel: (519) 439-3348 \ 1-877-439-3348; Fax: (519) 439-7053; or E-mail: aschaden@rcec.london.on.ca

                    2:20 PM Panel — Working together to oppose euthanasia and promote the principles of Excellent Care.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                      November 3, 1999

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of B.C. strongly endorses the following statement * condemning the duplicity of Senator Sharon Carstairs' latest ploy:

A bill now before the Senate could dramatically affect the care of sick and disabled persons. Present Canadian law does not authorize anyone to intentionally cause a patient's death. But Bill S-2, introduced by Senator Sharon Carstairs, would change that. It would give doctors, nurses, parents, and government proxies the power to end the lives of patients by withholding or withdrawing routine medical treatment including nutrition and hydration.

It is important to realize that, under the Criminal Code, death can be caused by non-provision of medical treatment and other "necessaries of life." Bill S-2 is designed to supplant the Code's protection of patients, yet by circumventing rather than reforming the Code: "Nothing in this Act imposes any legal duty to provide medical treatment" (s. 5).

Senator Carstairs should be the first person to acknowledge the bill's homicidal implications. She was a member of the special Senate committee that studied euthanasia in 1994-95. The committee's minority, which included the senator, favored legalizing lethal measures to end suffering, arguing that it was ethically similar to having people die from non-treatment (see committee's report, p. 88).

Dubbed the Medical Decisions Facilitation Act, the bill would indeed facilitate many things: parents denying routine surgery to their disabled children (s. 3), government proxies denying treatment against the wishes of patients and their families (s. 3); physician involvement in ending patients' lives, with or without consent.

Not only would Bill S-2 undercut the Criminal Code's protection of life, it would also run contrary to past court rulings upholding the rights of "non-competent" patients to treatment (Dawson, Sawatsky cases).

The bill is not needed to give patients the right to refuse treatment or to forego heroic measures. These rights are already legally secure and well established in medical practice.

Senator Carstairs claims her bill is not about euthanasia. The claim is disingenuous. The lives of sick and disabled people now hang in the balance. And if S-2 passes Parliament, it will provide the senator and her allies with a major legal gateway to an expanded euthanasia agenda in the future.

* by Peter Ryan, MA, STL   -  see also  "IS BILL S-2 ABOUT EUTHANASIA?"

Peter Ryan's post-graduate dissertation in ethics examined the Canadian euthanasia debate and the Senate's 1995 report. In 1994 he appeared before the Senate euthanasia committee and co-founded the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of BC. 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                        January 13, 1999

A new Angus Reid poll appears to signal a dramatic shift in public opinion on euthanasia, says the chair of a coalition of BC groups opposed to mercy-killing.  Yoseph Thomson notes that 56% of Canadians oppose legalized euthanasia in the poll (for Globe & Mail - CTV) whose results were released Monday.   "For several years we've heard media reports - including from Angus Reid - about a 70% range of support for euthanasia," Thomson says.  "Now we hear a very different story.  The big question is, what's going on?  Why the apparent seismic change in numbers?"

"But what is really strange," Thomson says, is the amount of silence from pollsters, pundits and the media - on the 56% opposition, on the apparent dramatic reversal of public opinion, and on the reasons for the change."   He said, "It would be especially interesting for Angus Reid to explain the contradiction with their November 1997 poll reporting 76% support for euthanasia."

In the past Thomson's coalition has criticized polls reporting a public consensus in favour of euthanasia, including a December 1997 Pollara poll (for Southam Global TV) which reported 70% support for doctor-assisted suicide.   Thomson says that "Our analysis is that such polls were not reliable because they failed to accurately define terms.  The latest poll, which refers to the 'mercy-killing' of Tracy Latimer, is more valid because it's more clear what is meant by 'mercy-killing.'  In fact, it confirms our own polling in BC (September 1997) which showed no consensus in favour of legalizing euthanasia when the term was carefully defined."

Thomson says that in actuality there may be no big shift in public opinion.  "Maybe it's just the truth trying to get out.   But here we have a concern:  Is that truth too unfashionable for some media to report?  Is the public fated to only hearing pro-euthanasia stories?"

Thomson is not without strong criticism of some aspects of the new poll.  "Its big weakness is that it reports that 70% of those opposed to legalization favour lenient punishment for Robert Latimer, but it entirely fails to ask about the key legal issue, namely whether a lighter sentence would undermine the rights of disabled people like Tracy Latimer.  If you asked the same 70%, 'Do you believe disabled people should receive equal protection by the law?' they would all say yes.   And if you then asked, 'Should the killer of a disabled person get off easier than the killer of a non-disabled person?' they would probably say no."

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                     November 23, 1998

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of BC has mixed feelings about today's Latimer ruling by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.  The court rejected Robert Latimer's appeal, and said that he must serve at least 10 years for killing his disabled daughter Tracy.

Coalition co-chairs Yoseph Thomson and Dr. Will Johnston stated:   The ruling is a victory for disabled people.  The court does not view the life of Tracy Latimer as expendable or less valuable because she was disabled. Yet we feel compassion for Robert Latimer's family who will now be separated from him because of his action.

The case underscores the need for strong community support for families with disabled children.  Parliament should now take the lead to correct current deficiencies in the social safety net, so that parents do not feel isolated or driven to desperate measures.  For example, the Canada Health Act should be amended, to give home care for disabled persons the same prominence as institutional care.

Surely the killing of a disabled child is an avoidable tragedy.

"There is no consensus about so-called mercy-killing." Johnston stated. "But there is definitely a public consensus for better palliative care services to relieve the suffering of dying persons. That's where we should be focusing our attention instead of frightening sick and disabled Canadians with proposals to eliminate them."

"The Pollara poll findings are inaccurate because they don't define 'doctor assisted-suicide.'  Our results show many people still don't understand terms like euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide.  They think we're talking about pulling the plug when Granny is all but gone," said Johnston.

The EPC poll suggested that 71% of the public were opposed to assisted suicide when it was more clearly defined. It also showed a bare majority of support for legalizing euthanasia when defined as the deliberate ending of life by a pill overdose or lethal injection. A huge majority (81%) wanted the government to guarantee palliative care and pain relief for the dying as an alternative to more drastic measures such as euthanasia. "The political drive towards euthanasia completely ignores the clearly stated wishes of the Canadian electorate," Johnston said.

"Once again, Canadians are being misled by a faulty poll," said Johnston. Last month EPC criticized an Angus Reid-CTV poll for claiming 76% support for euthanasia. "Canadians will suffer if serious legislative change is made based on misrepresentation of Canadian public opinion," he said.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE          November 14, 1997

"Canadians should question last week's well-publicized Angus Reid - CTV 'euthanasia poll'," says Dr. Will Johnston, co-chair of a British Columbia coalition of organizations opposed to euthanasia.

"Far from any mention of euthanasia - the (illegal) killing of someone else for reasons of compassion - the poll asks about persons who "take their own life." In other words, it asks about suicide, not euthanasia:

"One issue that's received attention lately concerns the 'right to die' - that is, whether a person who is is terminally ill and wants to die before enduring the full course of the disease, e, should have the right to take their own life. As a moral question, do you personally support or oppose the concept of people having the 'right to die?"

"Now this is puzzling," says Dr. Johnston. "Why would a nationally respected polling company, and national media network, make claims about euthanasia when the polling question is about something else? The results (76% support) may provide interesting information about suicide, but how relevant is that to the euthanasia debate when suicide has been legal since 1972?

"It is not legal to deliberately end another person's life with a pill overdose or a lethal injection. Some people consider this a way to end pain, other people consider it killing. If euthanasia is defined as deliberately ending another person's life with a pill overdose or lethal injection, do you oppose or favour legalizing it?"

Result - 53.7% support

"What this poll shows," according to Dr. Johnston, "is what the 1994-95 Senate hearings showed: there is no public consensus on legalizing euthanasia. The Angus Reid - CTV poll claims otherwise - without, however, providing any real basis for that claim.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE    November 5, 1997

"Just because Oregon has accepted the legalization of assisted suicide doesn't mean the people of British Columbia have to," said Dr. Will Johnston of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, referring to yesterday's referendum result in favour of an Oregon law permitting assisted suicide. Oregon now becomes the only jurisdiction in North America where assisted suicide is considered a legal and acceptable "medical treatment."

"The Oregon result is a warning that the majority can be wrong," said Dr. Johnston. "When the majority decides that the lives of sick and disabled people have less value than the able-bodied, it^'s wrong. As euthanasia opponent Rita Marker has commented, 'Oregon has decided that suicidal able-bodied people should receive suicide prevention, but that suicidal people who are disabled, sick or dying can be given a prescription for poison."'

The question of how much society values the disabled is also at issue in the Robert Latimer court case now awaiting a jury verdict. Latimer has admitted killing his 12-year-old disabled daughter in order to end her suffering. "It would be grossly unjust for the jury to deny Tracy Latimer equal protection from murder because she happened to be disabled."

British Columbians are not comfortable with the notion of assisted suicide, Dr. Johnston noted. A Market Explorers poll released in September showed 71% agreed with the statement, "People who want to commit suicide should be helped with their problems, not helped to die by means of assisted suicide." "And most people obviously do not approve of Robert Latimer's conduct," Johnston said.   59% stated that the law should not allow parents to take the lives of their disabled children."

"The good thing about a democracy is that no law is carved in stone",  Dr. Johnston stated. "When you rnake a mistake, as Oregon has done, you can always correct it.  But it makes me sick at heart to think sick and vulnerable people will be paying the price until the error is remedied."

California legal advocate Wesley Smith, author of "Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder", will speak about the Oregon vote at the Annual General Meeting of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition on November 18 in Vancouver.

When it comes to the suffering of dying persons, most British Columbians want improved medical care rather than euthanasia according to a new poll released today. 81% of those surveyed want the government to guarantee pain relief and other care to alleviate suffering among the dying. 71% say that ^"People who want to commit suicide should be helped with their problems, not helped to die by means of assisted suicide."

The poll, carried out in June by Market Explorers, may be the most extensive poll ever conducted in B.C. on the issue of euthanasia.

Vancouver physician Will Johnston of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, which commissioned the poll, commented that "The poll demonstrates that there is no public consensus on legalizing so-called mercy-killing. What does unite the public is the desire to see improved care for the dying. We'd like to see the government and medical community respond accordingly."

The polls shows that concern about pain and suffering is the primary factor driving public support for legalizing euthanasia. It also reveals that support for legalization often is based upon ambivalence and mistaken assumptions. Two-thirds of those supporting legalization mistakenly defined euthanasia as including the refusal of life-sustaining treatment or medication. Those favoring legalization usually had reservations about the abuses that could occur.

Some specific findings of the poll:

· 76% of those favoring legalization were concerned that, if euthanasia is allowed, people in a temporary state of depression might ask to have their lives ended.

54% of all respondents favored legalizing euthanasia.

67% of legalization supporters agreed, "People who want to commit suicide should be helped with their problems, not helped to die by means of assisted suicide."

Opposition to legalization was strongest among those more likely to be directly affected: the elderly (65+) were 47% more likely to be opposed than 35-54 year olds.

"54% for legalization is hardly a consensus," stated Dr. Johnston, "and much of that support is driven by anxiety over suffering. What most of these people really want to see is for every dying person to receive quality compassionate care. That care is everyone's moral right and society's moral responsibility."

Mr. Mark Pickup, a 43 year old Disabled Rights Activist will be in Vancouver, May 12 - 17 1997. He will be available for discussion/debate on the subject of assisted suicide.

Mr. Pickup, a Beaumont, Alberta resident who suffers from multiple sclerosis_, came to national prominence during thc Senate hearings on euthanasia in 1994 - 95,

Previous engagements include a debate on CBC TV with the late Austin Bastable, an Ontario resident whose death was assisted by the Michigan suicide doctor Jack Kevorkian. Mr. Pickup was also the featured speaker at a national conference on assisted suicide in Washington, D.C. in March 1997.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition BC feels Mr. Pickup's visit presents a timely opportunity for the public to examine the question of assisted suicide and its impact on the disabled community. EPC, a province wide coalition of 37 community groups, is dedicated to informed and open public discussion on all aspects of the euthanasia and assisted suicide issues.

Further information will be sent to you by mail. Please contact the following as soon as possible to arrange an interview with Mr. Pickup.

"The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of B.C. deplores the irregularities which led the Supreme Court to order a retrial concerning the murder of Tracy Latimer.  The Coalition wishes to see the due process of law upheld for every Canadian, most particularly the weak and inarticulate such as Tracy herself.  Her death was an ominous reminder to all disabled Canadians - you are only as safe as the honor shown to your life by your caregiver and our laws.

We applaud the admissibility of all the evidence in the first Latimer trial and wish to see this matter concluded soon."

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                 OCTOBER 18, 1996

"US and Canadian public opinion polls on euthanasia are unreliable" stated Dr. Robert Bernhoft, who addressed about 100 people at the first annual general meeting of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of BC, held Thursday in Vancouver.

Bernhoft said that it is common in the US and Canada for the public to hear of polls stating 75% support for legalizing assisted suicide. Research shows, however, that many people do not accurately understand the terms of the debate. "Many people think euthanasia means simply unplugging the ventilator of a brain dead person."

Bernhoft was active in coalitions that defeated euthanasia initiatives in Washington State and California. He went on to say that the political momentum in the USA appears to be swinging against assisted suicide. During the past year 13 states have either passed or strengthened laws against assisted suicide.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition chair Jim Lane said his group currently consists of 29 organizations representing more than 100,000 British Columbians. He said the coalition is pushing for major improvements in palliative care in order to alleviate requests for assisted suicide.

Dr. Bernhoft added that even pro choice people are asking if it is not premature to discuss the right to euthanasia when the right to adequate health care is not guaranteed.

Co-chair Yoseph Thomson said that the coalition encourages community groups to sponsor debates on the euthanasia issue. It is important to have an open debate to discuss political initiatives that otherwise might escape public scrutiny.