Thursday, February 23, 2017

Murder of woman with dementia leads to demand for more euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The alleged murder in Montréal of a woman with dementia has led to renewed pressure by the euthanasia lobby to extend "MAID" to incompetent people.

Allegedly, Michel Cadotte killed his wife, Jocelyne Lizette, because they had been refused death by euthanasia. Cadotte has been charged with second degree murder.

In response to this death, the euthanasia lobby ia pressuring the government to extend euthanasia to people who are incompetent, such as those with Alzheimers or dementia, if they had previously indicated a wish to die by euthanasia. The media is also using this tragic story to promote the extension of euthanasia.

If euthanasia (death by lethal injection) is extended to incompetent people, how would it be possible to determine whether or not someone has changed their mind?

Recently a woman in the Netherlands who stated, while competent, that she wanted euthanasia died by euthanasia without consent. According to the article in the Daily Mail:

The doctor secretly placed a soporific in her coffee to calm her, and then had started to give her a lethal injection. 
Yet while injecting the woman she woke up, and fought the doctor. The paperwork showed that the only way the doctor could complete the injection was by getting family members to help restrain her. 
It (the paperwork) also revealed that the patient said several times 'I don't want to die' in the days before she was put to death, and that the doctor had not spoken to her about what was planned because she did not want to cause unnecessary extra distress. She also did not tell her about what was in her coffee as it was also likely to cause further disruptions to the planned euthanasia process.
The Alzheimer Society of Canada disagrees with extending euthanasia to incompetent people. According to the CBC news report the Alzheimer Society of Canada stated that they do not support euthanasia for incompetent people. According to the Statement:
people can live with dementia for longer than ten years, and in that time, they may change their mind on doctor-assisted death. 
The statement says it's difficult or impossible for caregivers "to know what the person with dementia comes to value over time, especially if those values are at odds with previously expressed desires." 
Instead of calling for a broadening of the laws, the organization is calling for better palliative care in Canada.
Legalizing euthanasia gives the power to kill to physicians. No one should have the legal power to kill.

Anita Cameron (Not Dead Yet): The Disability Perspective

This article was published by Not Dead Yet on February 22, 2017.
In this desperate fight against assisted suicide, it is vitally important that people, especially lawmakers, speak with disability organizations such as Not Dead Yet.
Anita Cameron
By Anita Cameron

A few weeks ago, I went to Albany, the New York state capital, to meet with members of the Senate Minority Caucus to urge them not to support any forthcoming assisted suicide legislation.

During the meetings, each legislator and/or staffer was asked had he or she heard stances against assisted suicide from the perspective of disabled people. With one exception, no one said they had heard why many in our community are against it.

As I spoke with other folks with disabilities around the country, the same theme arose — they were speaking out against assisted suicide and they weren’t really being heard.

It is an uphill battle because those of us directly affected by such legislation are either being dismissed by Compassion and Choices or our voices are being drowned out by other powerful groups whose reasons for opposition to assisted suicide differ from ours.

I find it disturbing, to say the least, that the disability perspective has not been sought out, since our community will suffer the effects, unintended or not, of assisted suicide laws. This doesn’t come as any surprise when our lives are devalued by doctors and society in general. Why bother with the ramifications for us when, to most, being disabled is considered a fate worse than death?

So, what does the disability community think about assisted suicide? While our community isn’t monolithic, the vast majority of us, including all of the major disability organizations that have taken a position, feel that the legalization of assisted suicide is dangerous. It is inherently discriminatory, it opens the way for insurance companies to choose assisted suicide as an option because it is cheaper than paying for life-saving drugs and treatments, it allows doctors to be gatekeepers to decide whose lives are worthy, and makes it possible for unscrupulous and abusive family members and heirs to coerce their relative into choosing assisted suicide even if it isn’t what they want.

Proponents of assisted suicide such as Compassion and Choices pooh-pooh the disability perspective, saying that our community won’t be affected because this is for people with six months or less to live, who are in excruciating pain. The fact is, doctors can, and do, make mistakes about how long someone has to live. Also, while they and others talk about pain as the main reason that people want assisted suicide, the truth is that people seeking the suicide drugs in Oregon cited loss of autonomy, feelings of being a burden, loss of the ability to engage in activities, loss of the ability to control bodily functions and loss of dignity as the top reasons for wanting to die. All of these are issues that many of us disabled face every day and live meaningful lives despite this.

In this desperate fight against assisted suicide, it is vitally important that people, especially lawmakers, speak with disability organizations such as Not Dead Yet, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), ADAPT, National Council on Independent Living (NCIL) and Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) before supporting, sponsoring or co-sponsoring assisted suicide legislation. While other opponents may have moral or philosophical reasons for opposing this deadly trend, disabled people live with the cold, hard reality of what has happened, and what can happen, to us. We can give you actual facts of how our lives are affected, rather than philosophical musings or moral admonitions.

Reach out to us for our perspective and don’t dismiss us when we tell you the real truth about what assisted suicide legislation will do to disabled people. Listen to us because this is literally a matter of life and death!

Lessons from indigenous wisdom in the euthanasia debate.

This article was published by ABC News Australia on February 16, 2017.
How a person dies affects others, not just in the present but in the future.
Margaret Somerville
By Margaret Somerville

This Some time ago, I was a member of an ethics committee set up as part of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization established by the Canadian Government to advise it on how it should deal with the complex issue of the disposal of nuclear waste.

At the first meeting of the committee, the chairperson asked us each to introduce ourselves and to make some brief remarks relevant to the disposal issue.

George Erasmus, who was the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations from 1985 to 1991, was a committee member. When it came to his turn, after a long moment of silence, George said softly, 
“Well if it had been up to us, we would never have been in this position, because we would never have allowed the technology that results in nuclear waste. We would have looked back seven generations for lessons from our ancestors and looked forward seven generations to its risks and harms to future generations and decided against its use.”

George’s words came to mind as wise advice for those of us engaging in the legalization of euthanasia debate currently raging in Australia. They struck me as especially apropos in light of the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island and First Nations communities in Australia and Canada, respectively, are, in my anecdotal experience, uniformly and adamantly opposed to euthanasia. What might these indigenous communities be perceiving that pro-euthanasia advocates are not?

Looking back: Hippocrates and ‘do not kill’

Looking back seven generations is to consult history or, as John Ralston Saul evocatively calls it, “human memory”.

Since the time of Hippocrates 2,400 years ago, medicine has a history of the absolute prohibition of physicians intentionally killing their patients. Why now do some people want to abandon this foundational value guiding the practice of medicine?

We have always been faced with death and suffering and have never seen euthanasia as ethically acceptable medical treatment or, indeed, as medical treatment. Why then, when there is so much more we can do to relieve suffering, might our society suddenly think it is a good idea to allow doctors to inflict death? The contributing factors are multiple and complex, but at base the cause is a sole focus on upholding the individual’s absolute right to autonomy and “choice”, to the exclusion of other balancing considerations that should be taken into account.

These other considerations include what approach is needed to protect the common good, that is the wellbeing of the community as a whole, not just the wishes and claims of an individual person, important as these are. The cultures of indigenous peoples are more cognisant of this need to protect the community and attuned to it, which could be one reason they reject euthanasia.

Pro-euthanasia advocates adamantly reject that the history of the Nazi horrors has anything to teach us and scorn anyone who dares to suggest that, when judiciously examined, it might provide insights and warnings. It’s true that we will not see a Holocaust resulting from the legalization of euthanasia, but the origins of the Holocaust in German doctors’ involvement in small, allegedly well-motivated and compassionate medical acts and the justifications used to validate these acts carry serious warnings that deserve attention in the current debate.

Looking forward: what we do now affects our great-grandchildren

In using their imaginations to look forward seven generations in order to be warned of future harms and risks to their descendants, indigenous communities are again seeking to protect not only individuals, but also the community. How a person dies, when death is caused by euthanasia, affects not only that person, but also unavoidably affects others and the community, and not just in the present but also in the future.

To summarize: the strongest case for legalizing euthanasia is based in radical individualism and “presentism”. It focuses on a suffering, competent adult individual who asks for and gives informed consent to euthanasia to the exclusion of the impact on the community of allowing euthanasia, and ignores what we could learn from considering it in the context of both the past and the future.

So in deciding about legalizing euthanasia we should learn an important lesson from indigenous wisdom and ask ourselves questions which include: How do we not want our great-great-grandchildren to die? What must we not do now if we are to leave to future generations a society in which reasonable people would want to live? Would an Australian society in which euthanasia had become a norm be such a society?

In thinking about that last question, further realities can be brought to light. If, as Andrew Denton claims, Australia will have the same rate of deaths by euthanasia as the Netherlands and Belgium, around 4 percent of all deaths, that will result in around 6000 euthanasia deaths annually, which would make euthanasia the sixth leading cause of death in Australia. It would fall between respiratory diseases and diabetes on the Australian Bureau of Statistics “Causes of Death 2015” list, and there would be 25 percent more deaths by euthanasia than from diabetes, five times the number of deaths from road accidents (1200 per annum) and twice the number of deaths from suicide (3000 per annum). Could we accept that?

The population of the Victorian town of Lakes Entrance is just under 6000. Would we be comfortable with wiping out with euthanasia each year the same number of people who presently live in that town?

Margaret Somerville was Samuel Gale Professor of Law, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, and Founding Director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, Montreal. 
 Margaret Somerville is now a Professor of Bioethics in the School of Medicine at the University of Notre Dame Australia. Her most recent book is Bird on an Ethics Wire: Battles about Values in the Culture Wars.

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Oregon 2016 assisted suicide report. Under-reporting of assisted suicide deaths?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The 2016 Oregon annual assisted suicide report is similar to prior years. The report implies that the deaths were voluntary (self-administered), but the information in the report does not address that subject.

According to the 2016 Oregon assisted suicide report.

  • There were 133 reported assisted suicide deaths.
  • There were 204 lethal prescriptions obtained.
  • There were 8 deaths from "other illnesses" which included illnesses such as diabetes, hepatitis and alcoholic liver disease.
Oregon's assisted suicide law lacks effective oversight. 

The Oregon law enables two doctors to approve death by assisted suicide. There is no further oversight once the prescribing physician writes the lethal prescription. The prescribing physician was present at the assisted death in only 13 of 133 reported deaths in 2015, creating the opportunity for an heir, or someone else who will benefit from the patient's death, to administer the lethal dose. "Even if he struggled, who would know?"

After the person dies by assisted suicide, the physician who prescribed the lethal dose is required to submit a report. The information in the annual reports are based on the data self-reported by the doctors who prescribe the lethal dose. The physician is rarely at the death, and the physician is required to self-report. This means the system enables abuses of the law to be covered-up. Doctors will not self-report abuse of the law. 

There may be more assisted suicide deaths.

According to the 2016 Oregon report, the ingestion status was unknown in 10 of the deaths, up from 5 in 2015. 

The report states that numbers are excluded when the ingestion status is unknown since they do not know whether or not the person died by assisted suicide. It is possible that some or all of the 10 unknown deaths were assisted suicide deaths. These deaths could represent unreported assisted suicide deaths.
Legalizing assisted suicide gives physicians the power over life and death. It is the physician who decides, it is the physician who prescribes the lethal dose, and it is the physician who is required to self-report the act to the Oregon Health Authority.

We believe in Caring for people, not killing.

Friday, February 17, 2017

Dutch nursing home death – more excuses, more killing

This article was originally published on January 29, 2017 on the HOPE Australia website.

Paul Russell
By Paul Russell, the director of HOPE Australia.

Once you create a situation at law where killing of another person is allowed in certain circumstances, not only will the circumstances in which such killing is endorsed or allowed change over time, but the boundaries, however originally drawn, will be entirely ineffective in providing moral, legal and ethical guidance and restraint.

In Belgium and The Netherlands in the thousands of euthanasia deaths since their laws came into being in 2002 few cases have ever been referred by the review systems to justice for further scrutiny. In Belgium that number is one; one case only. …

According to a multiplicity of reports, an un-named woman–an octogenarian living in a nursing home and experiencing dementia– was euthanized against her will. She had made a comment in her advanced directive that she would like euthanasia “when I myself find it the right time.”

The woman had been a resident in the nursing home for only seven weeks. During that time she was noted as being ‘frightened and angry’ wandering the halls of the facility at night and missing her family. This, the nursing home doctor concluded, meant that she was suffering unbearably. She assessed that the woman was no longer mentally competent and accepted that the written declaration she had made earlier in her advanced directive was an acceptable request for euthanasia.

The Dutch Law allows for a request for euthanasia in an advanced directive to be acted upon after the satisfaction of all the other qualifying criteria. The law considers such a written statement as a ‘well considered request for euthanasia’. How it can be known for certain that, at the time the request was written down, that the person understood fully the nature of their request is never explained.

Compounding the problem, the woman’s expression of intent in her directive was not clear and should not have been accepted as an advance request according to the Dutch Euthanasia Commission. She had written, concerning euthanasia, that she wanted it, “when I myself find it the right time.” At the very least, this expression suggests that the woman wanted to approach the matter when she thought it was appropriate, implying that her own capacity to make a contemporary decision was important to her. Paradoxically, the doctor’s determination that capacity had been lost should have rendered her statement null.

Various media reports point out that the woman was provided with a sedative in her coffee ‘to calm the woman down’. She was unaware that the sedative had been provided. The Trouw newspaper’s editorial discussed the issue of the provision of a pre-euthanasia sedative without the person’s knowledge, pointing to a recent case where a similar sedative was provided without consent in a bowl of apple sauce. They note that the Dutch Euthanasia Review Commission rightly considers such behavior as ‘deceptive’.

The Trouw editor concluded that the problem was really that the coffee-carried dose was too low. Why? Because the woman resisted when later the doctor moved to apply the lethal dose via syringe. The NLTimes described it this way:
‘But when the infusion was inserted she “pulled back”, and while the doctor injected the euthanasia agent, she moved as if to get up. The doctor decided to continue while family members held the patient down. The woman died shortly afterwards.’
According to the UK Mirror, this story came to light via a report prepared by a Dutch Coroner for review by the Dutch Euthanasia Regional Review Committee. The Mirror says that the woman had said clearly several times “I don’t want to die” in the days before her death.

The Euthanasia Review Committee is charged with reviewing the file and making a recommendation that would need to be endorsed by a second review committee.

The Mirror concludes:
“The committee concluded though the doctor had acted in good faith, she should have stopped when the patient resisted. 
“Committee spokesman Jacob Kohnstamm added he was in favour of the case going to court: “Not to punish the doctor, but to get judicial clarity over what powers a doctor has when it comes to the euthanasia of patients suffering from severe dementia.” 
“The committee’s recommendations are now reportedly being considered by prosecutors and health officials.” …
Euthanasia or assisted suicide laws create an exception to the laws prohibiting homicide if certain criteria are observed. They were not observed in these cases, therefore the exception should not be applied. In Holland it would seem that ‘good faith’ is enough to be let off with a little less than a slap on the wrist. But deciding what is and is not an act in ‘good faith’ is a tricky business. A wrongful death – even in ‘good faith’ is still a homicide and not simply a misdemeanor.

It may be that this situation is being used deliberately to further the current debate on euthanasia and dementia and euthanasia and ‘tired of life’. It may be that the doctor was lax in her application to the paperwork; a simple mistake. But it just may be about a death outside of the confines set by the parliament – deliberately or otherwise – a homicide.

Whatever the outcome, what is abundantly clear is that once we create legal excuses for killing there will be more excuses and more killing.

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Oregon Senate Bill 494 will starve and dehydrate incompetent people to death.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In Oregon, the Senate is debating a deceptive bill (SB 494) that appears to simply replace the current advanced directives legislation, but in fact it promotes the withholding or withdrawal of nutrition and hydration (food and water) from people who are incompetent and not dying.

In 2006, I attended the World Federation of Right to Die Societies Conference. One of the topics discussed at the conference was death by voluntary stopping of eating and drinking (VSED). I remember the leader of the Dying in Dignity group (UK) stating that they do not promote VSED because, in their experience, it can be a terrible way to die.

Even though Oregon legalized assisted suicide 20 years ago, euthanasia is a prohibited. Euthanasia is an act whereby one person directly and intentionally causes the death of another person, whereas assisted suicide is an act whereby one person directly and intentionally assists another person in causing their own death. SB 494 opens the door to euthanasia of incompetent people in Oregon.

SB 494 is deceptive and dangerous piece legislation because it is sold as a bill to update current legislation but in fact it changes current legislation to ensure that incompetent people, who may or may not be otherwise dying, can be intentionally killed by dehydration.

Advanced directives are only relevant when a person is incompetent to make decision for themselves. Therefore SB 494, by definition, does not ensure that competent people can die by dehydration, but rather that incompetent people can be dehydrated to death.

SB 494 states:

____ I do not want my life to be prolonged by life support. I also do not want tube feeding as life support. I want my health care provider to allow me to die naturally if my health care provider and another knowledgeable health care provider confirm that I am in any of the medical conditions listed below.
So what are the conditions that are listed below?
a. Close to Death.   
b. Permanently Unconscious. 
c. Advanced Progressive Illness.
d. Extraordinary Suffering.
If a person is nearing death, based on the actual condition of the person, withholding or withdrawing fluids may be appropriate. But this decision should be based on a factual assessment that providing food and water has ceased to benefit and may be harming the person. We do not oppose withholding or withdrawing fluids from a person, when providing it has become useless, burdensome or without benefit.

If a person is incompetent then the person cannot consent to death by dehydration. To withhold fluids, even if the person while competent expressed this desire, is in fact dehumanizing the person by denying that person the basic necessaries of life. Withholding or withdrawing fluids from a person, who is not otherwise dying, will cause the person to die by dehydration. This is often a terrible death, even when the symptoms are masked by morphine and other analgesics. It is also a form of abandonment to deny a person the basic necessaries of life.
SB 494 opens the door to euthanasia of incompetent people in Oregon because death by lethal injection is more compassionate than dehydrating a person to death.

It is simply not necessary to change the current Oregon Advanced Directives legislation in order to specifically promote death by dehydration. SB 494 must be defeated.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Tell the Hawaii Legislature to Vote “No” on assisted suicide Bill SB 1129

This article was published on February 15, 2017 by Choice is an Illusion Hawaii.

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

SB 1129 legalizes physician-assisted suicide and allows euthanasia as long as actions are taken in “accordance” with the act.

The proposed Oregon style act applies to people with years or decades to live. The act is a recipe for elder abuse.

To view a legal analysis opposing the bill, with supporting documentation, click here. To view the analysis without the supporting documentation, click here.

Tell the Hawaii legislature to vote “No” on SB 1129. Contact info.


• Passing the proposed act will encourage people with years, even decades, to live, to throw away their lives. 
• The proposed act is sold as completely voluntary, but does not even have a provision requiring administration of the lethal dose to be voluntary. 
• Administration of the lethal dose is allowed to occur in private without a doctor or witness present. If the patient objected or struggled, who would know? 
• Elder abuse is already a not well controlled problem. Passing the proposed act will make the situation worse, to effectively allow legal murder. 
• Assisted suicide, even when apparently voluntary, can be traumatic for patients and families.

• Passage will create a risk of suicide contagion.

• The proposed Oregon-style “oversight” is a sham and will create the opportunity for a non-governmental entity to displace the proper role of government.
Tell the Hawaii legislature to vote “No” on SB 1129. Contact info.

Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA
Choice is an Illusion
206 697 1217

Not Dead Yet leader, Anita Cameron, submits testimony against Hawaii assisted suicide bill.

The testimony by Anita Cameron was posted on the Not Dead Yet website on Feb 14, 2017

Testimony in Opposition to SB 1129
Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Good day. Thank you very much for allowing me to offer my thoughts to you today.

Anita Cameron
y name is Anita Cameron. I am a 51-year-old with multiple disabilities, two of which are degenerative, and one which will take my life. I am writing in opposition to SB 1129, the Death with Dignity Act.

I will not use the euphemism that is the name of this bill, but will refer to it by exactly what it is – physician assisted suicide. It is very important to be up front, clear and honest about what this is. Couching it in pretty language and hiding the truth is disingenuous at best, and dangerous, at worst.

I am Director of Minority Outreach for Not Dead Yet, a national disability rights organization opposed to physician assisted suicide and euthanasia as deadly forms of discrimination against people with disabilities. I live in Rochester, New York, but work with people of color around the nation.

My primary reason for opposition to this bill and others like it is that disabled BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People Of Color) are at particular risk of being harmed by it.

Our health care system is inherently racist. Studies show that Blacks and people of color receive inferior medical treatment compared to Whites. We are less likely to receive adequate treatment for heart conditions, diabetes, cancer and chronic pain.

The lives of people with disabilities are largely devalued by doctors and society, in general. The lives of BIPOC with disabilities are even more devalued due to racism and stereotypes about our communities.

As a Black Indigenous Latina, I could never wrap my head around the assisted suicide phenomenon. I thought that it was some odd thing that privileged White people were into. My thoughts were confirmed when I learned that the Pew Research Center recently found that while 54% of Whites supported assisted suicide, 65% of Blacks and Latinos opposed it.

Although assisted suicide requests in Oregon are lower among Blacks and people of color, that doesn’t mean that this won’t change in more diverse areas, especially as healthcare support lessens and assisted suicide becomes more acceptable due to the efforts of groups like Compassion and Choices.

Another reason for my opposition is that doctors would be the gatekeepers of people’s lives (anyone can ask for assisted suicide, but it is the doctor that decides who gets it), and can decide for you about your quality of life.

Further, doctors often make mistakes about whether a person is terminal or not. In June, 2009, while living in Washington state, my mother was determined to be in the final stages of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and placed in hospice. Two months later, I was told that her body had begun the process of dying. My mother wanted to go home to Colorado to die, so the arrangements were made. A funny thing happened, though. Once she got there, her health began to improve! Almost eight years later, she is still alive, lives in her own home in the community and is reasonably active.

Because of the racist nature of our health care system and the tendency of doctors to devalue the lives of disabled and people of color, assisted suicide has no place as an option in Hawaii. Please vote NO on SB 1129!

Thank you for your attention.

Anita Cameron is the disability rights group - Not Dead Yet, director of minority outreach.

Monday, February 13, 2017

New Mexico assisted suicide bill moves toward Death on Demand.

This article was published by National Review on February 12, 2017
Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

Assisted suicide pushers are–to put it kindly–disingenuous.

For example, they often offer smooth assurances about “safeguards” to protect against abuse. Yet, new legalization schemes often dilute the traditional already-as-thick-as-water limitations in place where lethally prescribing is now legal.

For example, most laws require doctors to diagnose and prescribe lethally.

But a bill in New Mexico would open those who can help kill to nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants.

Generally a suicidal person needs to be terminally ill in US proposals (not so internationally), defined as 6 months left to live. (Some people so diagnosed never die of their condition, or live for years.)

But even that illusory protection is too strict for the New Mexico bill’s sponsors. Rather, it would institute far broader ”foreseeable” standard, first introduced by the Canadian government in its euthanasia law.

From House Bill 171:
F. “terminal illness” means a disease or condition that is incurable and irreversible and that, in accordance with reasonable medical judgment, will result in death within a reasonably foreseeable period of time.
“Reasonably foreseeable” could include illnesses like terminal breast cancer, in which longevity can be measured in years with aggressive treatment. Ditto, early Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

Heck when you get down to it, being a frail 90 years old could be construed as a “condition” qualifying for a lethal prescription, since the death of someone that age experiencing morbidity is certainly foreseeable.

And, like Washington State, the bill would require prescribers to lie on death certificates:
The cause of death listed on an individual’s death certificate who is deceased pursuant to self-administration of medical-aid-in-dying medication pursuant to the End of Life Options Act shall be the individual’s underlying terminal illness.
The point of such legally mandated corruption is to destroy all transparency.

And look at this: Doctors must meet professional standards of care when treating patients. But in helping kill them? All they–and caregivers–need is the “good faith,” a completely subjective standard, which also applies to caregivers and family members.
A. A person that acts in good faith to comply with the provisions of Section 3 the End of Life Options Act shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action for such action. 
This immunity extends to attending health care providers, a patient’s caregivers and another person that acts to assist the attending health care provider or patient.
And get this, there are no waiting periods required from request for a lethal prescription to its writing. That means a patient could be told she is foreseeably terminally ill, ask for the poison, and receive it, and kill herself on the same day. That’s almost akin to death on demand. Those pushing to permit medicalized killing pretend to want a very narrow license.

As I said above, and to put it as kindly as I can, that is… Aw to heck with tact: They are utterly mendacious. The Patients Rights Council (for which I am a paid consultant) offers a more detailed analysis of the New Mexico bill.

Canadian doctors are struggling with euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Jeff Blackmer, the former ethicist and current Vice President for medical professionalism with the Canadian Medical Association told Ryan Turnitty from Metro news that Canadian doctors are struggling with participating in "assisted dying" procedures.
doctors have been telling his group that they struggle with taking part in assisted-death procedures. 
He said physicians who have agreed to help a patient they knew well may find it difficult to help subsequent patients. 
“They will say, it was just too difficult and too traumatizing physiologically and it is not something I will go through again,” he said. “They really struggle with it, and for some of those that is the only one they will do.”

Blackmer said some of Canada's physicians are entirely ruling out providing end-of-life assistance to future patients. 
“In some provinces where they have a list of providers where they may be willing to participate, I know from speaking to colleagues that some of those lists are getting shorter.”
Note: When Blackmer says end-of-life assistance, he actually means lethal injection. 

Blackmer says he has not received reports of doctors being pressured to do euthanasia.

The reality is that killing another human being, even by request, is innately wrong and dangerous. People should be concerned about doctors who do not have a problem with killing their patients.