www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Britain becoming "Suicide Capital?"

Is this the future of American health care for the disabled and elderly? Read this excerpt from the (London) Daily Mail dtd Sep24:

Could Britain become the suicide capital of the world? Doctors can help patients end their lives

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 7:25 AM on 24th September 2009


Doctors will be able to help their patients commit suicide under new rules on assisted dying brought into force yesterday.

The rules laid down by the Director of Public Prosecutions indicate how families can help desperately-ill loved ones to die and expect to escape criminal charges.

But Keir Starmer QC said that the rules will also apply to doctors and nurses. They will be able to decide for themselves when they are free to help patients to die.
Debbie Purdy

The new guidelines come after Debbie Purdy fought for her partner to be free from fear of prosecution if she committed suicide

He admitted that his guidelines might result in an increase in suicides, saying: 'Only time will tell. It may do, it may not do.'

The extension of the assisted suicide rules to the medical profession brought condemnation from opponents of euthanasia and warnings to doctors from medical organisations that they should take care not to stray over the line of the law with dying patients.

There were also deepening concerns that the DPP, a paid public official, has in effect usurped the role of Parliament by shaping the law on assisted dying.

It even brought warnings that Britain could become the suicide capital of the world. A prominent Australian advocate of euthanasia, Dr Philip Nitschke, said his countrymen who wanted to die were unwilling to travel to Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, because they found it an alien country.


More...

* A.N. WILSON: I still wake up in the night, wishing I had killed my mother. But Keir Starmer is wrong

Now Britain would be an easy choice for families, he said, and 'these issues will be resolved by the decision of the UK public prosecutor'.

The spread of assisted suicide now looks likely to depend on the attitudes among doctors and nurses. The British Medical Association only narrowly rejected allowing families to help with the suicide of members this summer in a 53 per cent to 45 per cent vote.

The biggest nursing union, the Royal College of Nursing, dropped its opposition to assisted suicide in July.

The DPP was instructed by Law Lords this summer to publish the rules by which he will decide whether people will be prosecuted for helping relatives or friends to kill themselves.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sted-suicide.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0S4YAsLNq


Is this one of the things that makes Britain's socialized healthcare "attractive?" (According to the the Prime Minister's 'spin' as recently reported)

Fr Deacon Paul

The Oregon equivalent of the "public option" offers people the option of suicide when they face very expensive treatment (more then the state formula allows). Last year the one lady was offered the suicide pill because the state would not pay for her medications. Lucky for her one of the big drug companies found out about it and gave her the drug for free. She's still alive.

Look at Canada. Their parliament is voting on this. It's misnamed "Right to Die with Dignity" but further legalizes not just assisted suicide but euthanasia. Some of the news reports are honestly saying that both are needed to reduce health care costs for their government run system.

It's coming here. President Obama's talk about denying health care to seniors and giving them pain pills instead is the first step. The push to legalize euthanasia has occurred in every single country with government run health care. Anyone who knows the facts would not support government run anything.



Letter asking Members of Parliament and all the people of Canada to reflect on the possible consequences of Bill C-384
21 September 2009

The Parliament of Canada is soon expected to debate private member’s Bill C-384, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity), which aims at legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.

Those wishing to re-open this debate are no doubt motivated by concern for the sufferings of others. An unfortunate understanding of compassion has led them to suggest euthanizing the most vulnerable instead of providing them with proper care, effective pain control, and social, emotional and spiritual support until their natural death. It is always important to be as clear as possible about intentions and possible consequences when we consider human acts, so as to assure the greatest good and limit any harm to the persons directly affected and also to the wider community.

Unfortunately, some of the terms being proposed for this debate are misleading or unclear. This can only lead to discussions that are confusing and unhelpful, and also makes it difficult to find common ground from which to assess the risks and impact of
proposals for new legislation.

From the Catholic perspective, it is legitimate to use medication and other means to alleviate suffering, even if a side effect can be the shortening of life expectancy. It is also legitimate for someone to refuse medical procedures that are found to be especially
burdensome. But what is never acceptable is the direct and intentional killing of the depressed, handicapped, sick, elderly or dying (Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 2276-77).

It is hard to see how any legislation legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide would protect the most vulnerable in our society. What confidence and trust could they possibly have that their lives would continue to be protected by health-care providers, family and friends, or society at large? Euthanasia and assisted suicide, by their very nature, mean there is no longer a common duty for all to protect the lives of others. There is also the well-founded fear that euthanasia and assisted suicide can be imposed on individuals as a way to save costs and lessen demands on care-givers. Inevitably, the result would be a society even more fragmented, with its members living in greater isolation and anxiety.

As this debate resumes in our country on such an important question, the Catholic Bishops of Canada invite:

1. The members of the Parliament of Canada – elected representatives in the House of Commons as well as Senators – to use clear definitions in their upcoming debates, and also to consider the profound impact that such legislation would have on the lives of individuals and on the wider community;
2. All Canadians to become better informed about euthanasia and assisted suicide, and to promote instead palliative and home care to help those in need and their care-givers;
3. Catholics, our brothers and sisters who belong to other Christian communities orother faiths, and all who appreciate the beauty and dignity of life, to engage in this debate civilly and respectfully, so as to witness a profound reverence for the
inherent dignity of each and all human life.

Most Reverend V. James Weisgerber
Archbishop of Winnipeg
President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops
http://www.cccb.ca/site/content/view/2711/1152/lang,eng/

Here's another one from 2006. There was just one a few weeks ago that said that 3 years later almost 16% of all elderly deaths in the UK are due to euthanasia (voluntary or involuntary). It is the direct result of a government run health plan. They don't have enough money to pay for their health care despite very high taxes. Why Brits and the people in other countries roll over and take this is beyond me.



Euthanasia: doctors aid 3,000 deaths

First UK study provokes furore

Doctors in the UK were responsible for the deaths, through euthanasia, of nearly 3,000 people last year, it was revealed yesterday in the first authoritative study of the decisions they take when faced with terminally-ill patients. More than 170,000 patients, almost a third of all deaths, had treatment withdrawn or withheld which would have hastened their demise.

The figures, extrapolated from the study, show rates of euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide which are significantly lower than anywhere else in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, where similar studies have been done. The numbers immediately provoked controversy.

"This research proves that some doctors break the law and deliberately help patients die," said Deborah Annetts, chief executive of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. "This is all done in secret and denied in public. Some of these doctors are acting compassionately on their patients' wishes, but some clearly act without consent. This cannot be safe."

However, Clive Seale, of the school of social science and law at Brunel University, who conducted the research with funds from the Nuffield Foundation, said the proportions of respondents who had been involved in euthanasia were small. "I think doctors in the UK are taking important decisions to alleviate suffering, but not necessarily ones that are illegal," Professor Seale told the Guardian.

He found that only a small proportion of deaths - 0.16% - were attributable to voluntary euthanasia, where patients made a request of their doctor. That suggests that doctors participated in 936 voluntary euthanasia deaths last year.

In a further 0.33% of deaths - 1,930 patients - doctors said they ended life "without an explicit request from the patient", which some call "non-voluntary euthanasia".

Professor Seale, whose research is to be published in the journal Palliative Medicine, said decisions in the latter category appeared to be merciful ones. "Basically a case in this category is often someone who is very close to death - maybe a few hours away - but suffering not in a way that they can communicate. Often doctors think the best solution is to end their lives. Or they can be people who have made the request in the past but are no longer competent," he said.

The study found no cases of physician-assisted suicide, where a patient asks the doctor for the means to kill him or herself, among the 870 doctors who participated.

Euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide are illegal under British law. Far more deaths were hastened by doctors through the legal means of withholding or withdrawing treatment. For 177,192 terminally-ill patients - nearly a third of all deaths (30.3%) - doctors made such "non-treatment decisions". Professor Seale said: "It seems consistent with a well-developed culture of palliative care and GPs who are rather worried about doing anything that might get them into trouble because of Harold Shipman."

In the wake of the trial of Shipman, who killed hundreds of elderly patients by injecting them with large doses of morphine, some doctors worry about the career consequences of using the pain-relieving opiate drug which can shorten life. The study found in around a third of the deaths last year, (191,811 patients if generalised across the UK) doctors had given treatments such as morphine.

The ProLife Alliance said the research showed doctors were involved in far fewer deaths than the "euthanasia lobby would have us believe". "However, we are still talking about the unlawful killing of 2,800 vulnerable people," said Julia Millington, its political director.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jan/18/health.science/print

It's coming here. You're right, Helen, if good people do nothing. Is this really much different to us than the "Kristallnacht" and roundup of the Jews in Germany in the mid 1930's?

Fr Deacon Paul

[quote=Paul B] Is this really much different to us than the "Kristallnacht" and roundup of the Jews in Germany in the mid 1930's?[/quote]

Well... yes, it really is.