Feed on
Posts
Comments

In an 18 June 2007 interview with the German newspaper “TAZ”, Dr Uwe-Christian Arnold, a German urologist has openly come out and declared that he not only supports the concept of PAS (physician-assisted suicide) but that he has indeed practiced it, and intends to continue doing so in cases where certain eligibility criteria have been met.

Dr. Arnold, who also serves as the Deputy Director of “Dignitate-Deutschland”-an associate organization of the Swiss “Dignitas” Zurich, contends that within the existing German legal framework, the chronical and terminal ill can be helped in Germany without having to subject themselves to the frequently agonizing travel to Switzerland.

Also, according to Dr. Arnold, quite a number of German doctors are already performing PAS only they don’t want to talk about it openly. “ I am sick and tired of this hypocrisy “ he is quoted as saying to the TAZ reporter, and went on to say: My goal is to have PAS publicly acknowledged and made acceptable in Germany. I would like to see medical professionals develop a specialty in this field to help patients at the end of their days, just as we have obstetricians who render medical assistance at the very beginning.

Patient eligibility requirements would more or less follow those applied in Oregon, USA, and in Switzerland. “Active” assistance, where the final action that leads to death is in the hands, not of the patient him/herself, but is performed by another person, will not be offered.

Decisions to offer help in each case will be subject to review by at least two physicians. A maximum of personal contact with the individual concerned would be sought as well the assessment of social, economic and spiritual aspects would play an important role. Any indications of the presence of psychiatric or psychological difficulties would be referred to the appropriate specialists, and the case withdrawn from further consideration for possible inclusion in the PAS program.

As was to be expected , Dr. Arnold’s statement has received a mixed reaction, ranging from an earlier reported outburst by a Catholic Bishop during a talk show, wishing Dr. Arnold an early death, to the relatively mild comment of the President of the German Medical Association that the ethics surrounding such an activity were problematical, and that he saw little need for this type of undertaking which also might instill in the elderly and infirm a feeling that they should move in this direction to lift the burden of their care off the shoulders of their families.

The German Justice Ministry issued only a brief comment saying: “We see no reason to become active in this matter.”

In a 2005 poll taken by the German magazine “Stern”, 74 % of those polled were in favor of PAS, and 20% opposed. Thus it would seem as if Dr. Arnold who considers himself a pioneering advocate in this matter, will continue to speak out loud and clear and can most likely count on himself and his organization receiving grateful support and acclaim from a majority of the general public.

Dr Arnold’s email is as follows: christianarnold@tiscali.de

Welcome Back Dr. Kevorkian

In a June 1st MSNBC editorial, Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, called Dr. Jack Kevorkian a “dangerous killer.” Melody Youk, wife of Thomas Youk, whose Kevorkian-assisted suicide was broadcast on “60 Minutes,” said, “I don’t consider it murder. I consider it humane.” Youk’s mother and brothers agree.

Many call Dr. Kevorkian a “fanatic.” While we don’t employ or agree with his methods, every successful human rights movement has been built on the dedication and sacrifices of brave individuals such as Jack Kevorkian. Rosa Parks didn’t help launch the civil rights movement by obeying unjust laws.

Dr. Kevorkian took selfless risks that made Americans aware of needless suffering at the end of life. His zeal captured attention that made it possible for more moderate voices to achieve limited successes. More humane palliative care, widespread support for advance directives and the Oregon physician-assisted suicide law grew from the seeds of his advocacy.

Lest we forget, the right to a peaceful, dignified death has far to go. Today, even in Oregon, Youk would be forced to suffer on, because his ALS, while terrifying, disabling and robbing him of all quality of life, wasn’t “terminal.”

Caplan and iron-fisted judge Cooper call it murder. We believe Jack Kevorkian engaged in courageous acts of civil disobedience to help secure the last human right.

Welcome back Dr. Kevorkian!

Ted Goodwin – President
Final Exit Network
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
E-mail: info@finalexitnetwork.org
Media Direct Line: (720) 312-6340 Main Number: (800) 524-3948
Website: http://www.finalexitnetwork.org

Final Exit Network | P.O. Box 965005 | Marietta | GA | 30066

By Derek Humphry

The release of Dr Jack Kevorkian is welcome news. He has suffered the eight years of imprisonment with calm and fortitude and deserves a peaceful retirement.

But the thought he might have any influence on further developments does not make any sense. And while we are currently among the media circus surrounding his release, it is time to look back at what went on and what the future holds.

Kevorkian was never a part of the organized right-to-die movement, and publicly scoffed at its efforts to change the law. He was a lone ranger on this issue. The general public is split about the worth of his contribution to achieving so-called ‘death with dignity’ for the terminally ill.

Many in the health professions were and are skeptical about Kevorkian’s style of assisted deaths back in the l990s. Patients flying into Michigan one day, and being found dead the next, is not their idea of caring, cautious medical practice.

Political activists in the right-to-die movement in the l990s dreaded the thought that Kevorkian might show up during their campaigns because he was such a negative figure in the opinion polls.

Claims that he launched the right-to-die movement, and was responsible for the introduction of ‘Living Wills’ are inaccurate. The Hemlock Society was already ten years old with 20,000 members before Kevorkian surfaced publicly in l990. California passed the first Living Will law in l976.

There is no further need for Dr. Kevorkian’s services. (His parole conditions prohibit it anyway.) The right-to-die movement has changed considerably in the last ten years. There are now two national organizations, Compassion and Choices and the Final Exit Network, which will find ways to help suffering dying people to a speedy and peaceful — and legal — end.

Certainly Dr. Kevorkian is to be thanked for helping some 130 people to die who obviously wanted his aid in doing so. But he would not move out of his local county therefore those who could not travel to him went on suffering. Also, if he had not challenged the law enforcement on television to prosecute him then he could have continued to help people instead of languishing in jail.

He was convicted of second degree murder of Thomas Youk, who was asking to die, but Kevorkian seemed to think he could overturn the centuries-old legal maxim in Anglo-American law that a person cannot ask to be killed. I would like to see a new provision in the homicide laws that allows (which it sternly does not now) a defendant to plead that it was a merciful killing, upon request. Then let the jury decide.

There have been – and are — other retired doctors in America who will travel to different places to help dying people who are in great suffering to escape from their pain-wracked bodies. (Don’t ask me to name them; they are adverse to publicity.)

Kevorkian assiduously courted publicity as his way to shock his medical profession into seeking a change in the law. The media loved the sight of a doctor with a suicide machine killing patients upon request.

Around the same time, shrewd people in Oregon planned to change the law forbidding assisting death in that state. In l994, with a citizens’ vote, they succeeded in putting the Death With Dignity Act on the statute book, and fought all the way to the US Supreme Court to successfully defend it. Some 30 dying people in Oregon take advantage of this law every year.

Thus I thank Dr. Kevorkian for the huge public interest he aroused in the l990s in this issue, and he will go down in history as a major catalyst for reform via the media’s fascination.

In the coming years, as a reaction to the Bush Administration’s abuse of civil liberties, there will be a more welcome climate for law reform in the area of death and dying. The Oregon model marks the way forward to this ultimate civil liberty – the right to die in a manner of one’s own choosing.

1 June 2007. © copyright 2007 Derek Humphry

Derek Humphry founded the Hemlock Society in l980 and wrote the bestseller ‘Final Exit’ in l991. derekhumphry@starband.net

More than two-thirds of Americans believe there are circumstances in which a patient should be allowed to die, but they are closely divided on whether it should be legal for a doctor to help terminally ill patients end their own lives by prescribing fatal drugs, a new AP-Ipsos poll finds.

The results were released Tuesday, just days before Dr. Jack Kevorkian is freed from a Michigan prison after serving more than eight years for second-degree murder in the poisoning of a man with Lou Gehrig’s disease.

Kevorkian’s defiant assisted suicide campaign, which he waged for years before his conviction, fueled nationwide debate about patients’ right to die and the role that physicians should play.

Though demonized by his critics as a callous killer, Kevorkian — who is to be released Friday — maintains relatively strong public support. The AP-Ipsos poll found that 53 percent of those surveyed thought he should not have been jailed; 40 percent supported his imprisonment. The results were similar to an ABC News poll in 1999 that found 55 percent disagreeing with his conviction.

The new AP-Ipsos poll asked whether it should be legal for doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to help terminally ill patients end their own lives — a practice currently allowed in Oregon but in no other states. Forty-eight percent said it should be legal; 44 percent said it should be illegal.

More broadly, 68 percent said there are circumstances when a patient should be allowed to die, while 30 percent said doctors and nurses, in all circumstances, should do everything possible to save the life of a patient.

A majority of respondents — 55 percent — said they would not consider ending their own lives if ill with a terminal disease. Thirty-five percent said they would consider that option.

Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide law took effect in 1997. Through last year, 292 people — mostly stricken with cancer — have died under its provisions, which allow terminally ill, mentally competent adults to administer life-ending medication prescribed by a physician.

In addition to Oregon, three European countries — Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands — authorize assistance by doctors in the deaths of patients.

Oregon’s law has been reaffirmed by state voters and has survived intense legal challenges, but has yet to be emulated in any other state. Bills have been defeated by lawmakers in Vermont, Hawaii, Wisconsin and Washington; ballot measures to allow physician-assisted death have lost in Washington, California, Michigan and Maine.

Dr Jack Kevorkian free at last (on June 1, 2007)

The Euthanasia Research and Guidance Organization (ERGO) heartily welcomes the release from prison on parole of Dr. Jack Kevorkian after serving eight years of a 10-25 years sentence in Michigan, USA.

We hope that he can enjoy a well-deserved retirement — he is 79 — amongst his friends and supporters. In a better environment we trust his health will improve.

According to the existing letter of the law, Dr. Kevorkian was correctly convicted of murder. But for those who saw his helping a man dying in great pain and distress, and asking to die now, his action was justified and merciful. This case made clear that the laws governing homicide need
modifying to allow a plea of mercy killing, allowing juries to decide.

Now that Dr. Kevorkian has promised the authorities that he will not assist in any more deaths, we hope that he will give real backing to the legislative efforts of the right to die movement as he has promised from prison. He has expressed regret for not doing this beforehand.

The one undoubted benefit of his ten-year solo euthanasia campaign in the l990s was making the general public aware of the unrecognized suffering of many dying people, and that physician-assisted suicide was oftentimes their choice of dealing with it. Kevorkian’s hugely popular voice could be influential in future attempts at law reform.

Only the state of Oregon in America has so far legalized physician-assisted suicide; there is a long struggle ahead to get this benefit to other Americans. Holland, Belgium and Switzerland already have it.

—–Derek Humphry
Founder of the Hemlock Society 1980
President, ERGO * Author ‘Final Exit’
ergo@finalexit.org www.finalexit.org

Jack Kevorkian still supports euthanasia. In a telephone interview with Michigan TV station WJBK, Kevorkian vows to work toward having assisted suicide legalized. However, Kevorkian also says he won’t break any laws doing so.

The retired pathologist was sent to prison for up to 25 years in 1999 after he was convicted of murdering a man with Lou Gehrig’s disease. He’s scheduled to be paroled on June first after serving just over eight years, with time off for good behavior.

Kevorkian, who will turn 79 on Saturday, said he’s a little worried about his health. His attorney says Kevorkian suffers from diabetes, hepatitis C, high blood pressure, hardening of the arteries in his brain and vertigo, which causes him to lose his balance.

1. A political stalemate that has left most of New York’s population without critical decision-making powers in end-of-life situations. For years, to end this deplorable situation, the New York State Bar Association has been strongly advocating for a Family Health Care Decisions Act.

More than 75 percent of New Yorkers do not have a health care proxy designating a trusted family member or friend to make their medical decisions if they become too sick to make such decisions for themselves.

In 35 other states, plus the District of Columbia, there are specific laws that allow family members to make these decisions for sick relatives in the absence of a health care proxy. In almost all of the states that do not have such laws, court decisions grant these rights.

Unfortunately, this is not the case in New York. As a result, some incapacitated patients are denied appropriate treatment, while others are subjected to burdensome treatments that violate their wishes, values or religious beliefs.

[The above was part of a letter from the New York Bar Assn. to the New York Times)

2. The Minister for Health for West Australia, Jim McGinty, says he’s disappointed by delays to laws which will allow terminally ill people to decide how they’ll be treated.

Mr McGinty says the laws, which are commonly known as living wills, aim to allow people to plan in advance what medical treatment they should receive when they are close to death or in a vegetative state.

“It gives people the right to say I don’t wish to be artificially resuscitated or sustained, I want the life support machine turned off. It gives people that right to determine how they will be treated”.

Mr McGinty says that due to a lack of support in the Upper House he’s decided to defer parliamentary debate on the Consent to Medical Treatment Bill.

There is a long, thoughful, detailed article in the current issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN magazine, starting with the few paragraphs below, which examines the ways that brain damage is assessed.

Eyes Open, Brain Shut; May 2007; Scientific American Magazine; by Steven Laureys; 6 Page(s)

Recent progress in medical care has greatly increased the number of people who survive acute brain damage. Doctors can save the lives of many patients who suffer trauma to the brain (often after a road accident) or a lack of oxygen (for example, after a cardiac arrest or drowning), but if the damage is severe, the victim will slip into a coma. Individuals in this condition do not open their eyes; at best, they will show some reflex movements of the limbs. Coma rarely lasts longer than two to five weeks. Those who regain consciousness typically do so within days. Others will die, and still others will awaken from their coma but remain unconscious, entering what is called the vegetative state.

Even for experts, the vegetative state is a very disturbing condition. It illustrates how the two main components of consciousness can become completely dissociated: wakefulness remains intact, but awareness–encompassing all thoughts and feelings–is abolished.

By wakefulness, I mean that patients in a vegetative state have sleep/wake cycles. At the times when they seem to be awake, their eyes open and sometimes wander. At other times they keep their eyes shut and appear to be asleep, although they may open them and stir when touched or spoken to.

These patients usually can breathe without technical assistance and can make a variety of spontaneous movements–such as grinding teeth, swallowing, crying, smiling, grasping another’s hand, grunting or groaning–but these motions are always reflexive and not the result of purposeful behavior. Typically patients will not fix their eyes on anything for a sustained period, but in rare instances they may briefly follow a moving object or turn fleetingly toward a loud sound.

[You can access the whole article on the Internet at a cost of $7.95 USD. Even better, buy the magazine (Volume 296, Number 5, May 2007) $5.95 ]

The number of euthanasia cases in the Netherlands has dropped over the past few years, though the number of terminal patients receiving palliative sedation has increased. This has emerged from an evaluation of euthanasia legislation presented to State secretary for public health Jet Bussemaker.

2,300 people had their lives terminated by euthanasia in 2005, more than a third less than the 3,500 cases in 2001. There was an 11-percent increase in the use of palliative sedation in the same period from 8,500 to 9,600.

Palliative sedation involves the administration of deep sleep-inducing medication to terminal patients who have at most two weeks to live. These patients are not administered liquid in this state.

The number of doctor-assisted suicides also decreased, from 300 in 2001 to 100 in 2005. There were also fewer patient requests for euthanasia or suicide assistance: 8,400, compared to 9,700 in 2001.

The current legislation governing euthanasia has been in effect since 1 April 2002. The law allows euthanasia only when the patient has no prospect of recovery, his suffering is intolerable, he has made the decision conscientiously, no other solution is available, and a second doctor has been consulted.

Doctors are required to report euthanasia cases to a regional review committee which monitors that all conditions have been met. The evaluation indicates that more and more doctors are honouring this reporting requirement. While only 54 percent reported euthanasia cases in 2001, 80 percent did so in 2005.

A total of 76 Britons with terminal illnesses have ended their lives at the Dignitas Clinic in Zurich since it was founded in 1999. Between 2003 and 2006, an average of 14 people a year made the trip, (The Independent reported), while 34 have done so since January 2006.

“It is appalling that the current law in the UK means that terminally ill British people who want to end their lives are being forced to travel to a strange country to do so,” said Rose Brocklehurst of Dignity in Dying. “Their lives are being ended more prematurely than would otherwise be necessary because they have to be able to travel.”

People who want to use the Swiss clinic must fill out extensive paperwork to show that they are terminally ill and that their decision to end their lives is not coerced. At Dignitas, they have a final medical interview and are then given a lethal barbiturate cocktail, which they drink themselves.

Euthanasia literature at the ERGO Bookstore

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »