NAPN's Shout out your aDoPtion campaign is here!
NAPN's Shout out your aDoPtion campaign is here!
by Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
The assisted suicide lobby has introduced assisted suicide bills in at least 18 States in 2020. All of these bills include "safeguards" that appear to provide oversight of the law.
Recently I published an article explaining how the "safeguards" are written with loosely defined language to permit the laws to be redefined over time. I also explained that the "safeguards" are designed to convince legislators to legalize assisted suicide, while the assisted suicide lobby intends to remove them overtime.
For instance, the Hawaii legislature passed an assisted suicide bill in 2018 that came into effect on Jan 1, 2019. There were 27 assisted suicide deaths in 2019.
The assisted suicide lobby is proposing to expand the assisted suicide law after only one year. The Hawaii legislature is debating bills SB 2582 and HB 2451 to expand the assisted suicide law by:
The Hawaii legislature also debated bill SB 3047 that would have allowed:
Its hard to believe that the assisted suicide lobby wants death by "Telehealth."
The Washington State legislature is debating Bill 2419, a bill to study the "safeguards" in their assisted suicide law. One of the issues to be studied is allowing euthanasia (lethal injection) rather than limiting it to assisted suicide.
Last year the Oregon legislature expanded their assisted suicide law by waiving the 15 day waiting period.
Assisted suicide may not be a peaceful death.
The assisted suicide lobby has been using experimental lethal drug cocktails as they attempt to find a cheaper way to kill. The current assisted suicide drug cocktails have caused painful deaths that may take many hours to die. A recent article stated:
The (first drug mix) turned out to be too harsh, burning patients’ mouths and throats, causing some to scream in pain. The second drug mix, used 67 times, has led to deaths that stretched out hours in some patients — and up to 31 hours in one case.
The assisted suicide lobby is working on their third experimental lethal cocktail. Assisted suicide is not guaranteed to cause a "peaceful or painless death."
Our greatest concern is the New York assisted suicide bill. Governor Cuomo stated that he will sign an assisted suicide bill into law.
New York Assembly Bill A2694 and Senate Bill S3947 where introduced as the Medical Aid in Dying Act.
As Margaret Dore, the President of Choice is an Illusion stated in her article: New York: Reject Medical Aid in Dying Act:
“Aid in Dying” is a euphemism for euthanasia. The Act, however, purports to prohibit euthanasia. On close examination, this prohibition will be unenforceable.
If enacted, the Act will apply to people with years or decades to live. It will also facilitate financial exploitation, especially in the inheritance context. Don’t render yourself or someone you care about a sitting duck to heirs and other predators. I urge you to reject the proposed Act.
Assisted suicide is an act whereby one person (usually a physician) provides a prescription for a lethal drug cocktail knowing that the other person intends to use it for suicide.
Euthanasia is an act whereby one person (usually a physician) lethally injects another person, usually after a request.
Several of the assisted suicide bills have language that can be interpreted to permit euthanasia.
Assisted suicide bills are usually designed as an application process for obtaining a lethal dose.
For instance the Maryland assisted suicide bill HB 0643 may permit euthanasia (homicide) because it doesn't require the person to self-administer. The Maryland bill doesn't protect the conscience rights of medical professionals either.The Massachusetts assisted suicide bill can also be interpreted to permit euthanasia.
The New Hampshire assisted suicide bill gives physicians the right to write a lethal prescription but the term self ingest is not found in the main text of the bill. Only within the life insurance section is there a statement that may be construed as limiting the act to assisted suicide where it states:
Neither shall a qualified patient’s act of ingesting medication to end such patient’s life in a humane and dignified manner have an effect upon a life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy.
Even this statement does not refer to self-ingestion.
The New Hampshire bill permits euthanasia by giving a physician the right in law to write a lethal drug prescription, but it does not limit how the lethal drugs can be used.
New Hampshire assisted suicide bill will create a perfect crime.
Assisted suicide bills are intentionally written in a deceptive manner, so that if legalized, the legislation can be interpreted in a wider manner. Further to that, the assisted suicide lobby has no intention of maintaining the "safeguards" in the bills. These "safeguards" are simply mean't to sell assisted suicide to the legislators.
Hawaii is debating the expansion of its assisted suicide law only one year after it came into effect, and Washington State is examining all of the safeguards, while Oregon expanded its assisted suicide law last year.
Clearly assisted suicide bills are not what they appear to be.
Above article reprinted from Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Newsletter/website.
October 16, 2019
By Paul Smeaton
WXYZ-TV Detroit / YouTube
ANN ARBOR, Michigan, October 16, 2019 – Bobby Reyes, a 14-year-old boy from Michigan who doctors declared “brain dead,” died yesterday after a judge dismissed his family’s court case asking he be given more time. The University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital removed his ventilator just hours later. The case was heard at 10:00 a.m. and by 3:00 p.m. the hospital had released a statement declaring Bobby to be dead.
Bobby suffered a cardiac arrest on September 21 after experiencing an asthma attack and was airlifted to the University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital in Ann Arbor.
Doctors at the hospital diagnosed Bobby as being “brain dead” and within a week of that diagnosis informed his family that his ventilator would be removed, bringing an end to his life.
Bobby’s family brought the case to court to seek more time to arrange a transfer for their son.
But that request was denied by Judge David Swartz of the Washtenaw County Circuit Court yesterday morning, and the medical staff at the University of Michigan hospital disconnected Bobby’s ventilator just hours later.
The decision to remove Bobby’s ventilator was made after a second brain death examination was made Monday which pronounced him dead. But Bobby’s family has continually pointed out that the hospital has admitted that there has been improvement in Bobby’s condition and that it is only possible for a living person to get better.
They have claimed that other doctors believed there was hope for Bobby, including Richard P. Bonfiglio. Bonfiglio is himself a graduate of the University of Michigan’s medical school and attended the court hearing yesterday.
He told the Detroit Free Press that he had reviewed Bobby’s charts and visited him in the hospital, although he did not conduct a formal examination because he lacks admitting privileges at the hospital.
When asked if he had seen reasons for the family to hope, he said, “Absolutely, yes. The problem is the whole determination of brain death is not a precise science at this point, so when you’re dealing with this kind of situation, I would rather err on the side of giving him a chance than on terminating things.”
Earlier Monday Bobby’s mother, Sarah Jones, released a statement on the Facebook group “Save Bobby.”
“The University of Michigan just killed my son,” she said. “Our lawyer Bill had papers at the courthouse in his hand that could have saved him but they rushed this whole thing so fast. Bobby is gone and I feel numb we tried so hard to save him I let my boy down. My heart is [broken] we were so close to finding him a place they couldn’t give us no time monsters and murderers.”
reposted from Lifesite News
(2014) Do assisted suicide supporters really expect doctors and nurses to be able to assist the suicide of one patient, then go on to care for a similar patient who wants to live, without this having an effect on their ethics or their empathy? Do they realize that this reduces the second patient’s will to live to a mere personal whim—one that society may ultimately see as selfish and too costly?
by Marianne Linane
Ron Panzer, LPN