Australian woman charged with Killing her millionaire boyfriend.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Matthew Dunbar and Natasha Darcy

Natasha Beth Darcy has been charged with killing her boyfriend, Matthew Dunbar (42) in August 2017, soon after he named her the sole beneficiary of his multi-million dollar estate.

I am writing about the alleged murder of Dunbar is that Darcy is accused of using euthanasia techniques to kill Dunbar, information, devices and drugs that she obtained through the internet.

According to Emma Partridge, the Senior Crime Editor for 9News Darcy gave Dunbar crushed sedatives and then used an “Exit Bag” to complete the act. I will not describe the act that Darcy is accused of doing. 9News stated that Darcy has a history of violence towards boyfriends and the trial will begin next year.

9News reported that Dunbar was a trusting person.

Mr Dunbar’s heartbroken mother Janet still struggles to comprehend the loss of her son. 

“He’d give you the shirt off his own back and unfortunately he was too trusting,” Ms Dunbar told 9News. 

“He just wanted to belong to a family. Family meant everything to him,” she said.

The case shows how prescribing assisted suicide drugs can be a perfect cover for murder.

Nick Goiran introduces 357 proposed amendments to Western Australia euthanasia bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Hon Nick Goiran

Hon Nick Goiran, a Liberal MP and a known opponent of euthanasia, gave notice last night, that he is proposing 357 amendments to the Western Australia euthanasia bill, making it clear that a final vote on the bill will not likely occur this year.

Last August, Goiran, who was a member of the committee that examined euthanasia, wrote a 248 page minority report titled: License to Care not License to Kill opposing the legalization of euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Jacob Kagi reported for ABC news that:

The 64-page list of amendments also includes changes proposed by other MPs, including Labor’s Martin Pritchard, One Nation’s Colin Tincknell and independent Charles Smith.

Supporters of the Government’s bill dismissed the lengthy list of amendments as an obvious attempt to delay a final vote.

“Three hundred and fifty seven amendments from the lead speaker for the Liberal Party is extraordinary,” Labor’s Upper House leader Sue Ellery said.

Western Australia Parliament

Kagi reports that Goiran rejected the accusation that he is simply filibustering the bill.

Mr Goiran rejected suggestions that he was attempting to filibuster the debate.

“Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said.

“The simple amendments that are being put forward is to lift the standard of the Western Australian legislation to that of Victoria and Northern Territory. At the moment it’s the most dangerous in the nation.

“Clearly the Premier has not read the amendments on the notice paper because had he done so he would understand that a significant number of them are simply the amendments that were proposed in the Lower House.”

The Canadian experience with euthanasia should concern the Western Australian parliament. The number of euthanasia deaths have increased quickly and recently a Québec court expanded the law by striking down the requirement that a person must be terminally ill.

In August, we learned that Sean Taggert died by euthanasia in British Columbia after the government refused to provide him the necessary home care for him to live with ALS.
In September we reported on the euthanasia death of a man who was not physically ill but living with chronic depression. Alan Nichols death proves that the data does not accurately state why people die by euthanasia.

World Medical Association: Euthanasia is unethical.

This article wass published by OneNewsNow on October 31, 2019.

Alex Schadenberg

Some medical groups are unhappy with the World Medical Association (WMA) and its position on doctor-assisted suicide, and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition says the subsequent split is probably for the best.

In spite of intense pressure, the WMA has reaffirmed its position against medical professionals helping patients kill themselves. Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is pleased with the development.

“They made it very clear that these things are not within ethical healthcare,” Schadenberg reports. “They also provided a new definition of euthanasia and assisted suicide, which [is] good because it makes the debate very clear to physicians what they are talking about.”

The document also protects the conscience rights of physicians who object to the practice, which is important because doctors are being pressured into participating.

Still, not all doctor groups are pleased.

“The Dutch Medical Association and the Canadian Medical Associations have both left the World Medical Association because they feel that the WMA doesn’t represent them,” the Coalition head tells OneNewsNow. “Maybe the best thing for the WMA is to have these groups leave because they were only pressuring them to do something which was wrong.”

The American Medical Association this year likewise reaffirmed its position against doctors helping their patient kill themselves, in spite of heavy pressure to change their policy.

Fake news article states Canadian government will legalize child euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

There is an article circulating that claims that the Canadian government has a bill to legalize child euthanasia in Canada. This article is fake news and I hope it remains fake news.

The article is published by a blog called wisethinks.com and republished by a website called NBCM Coalition News.

The article quotes me without providing links to the original comments. I have commented on child euthanasia several times but I have no information about a current proposal to legalize child euthanasia and I have never stated that child euthanasia is legal in Canada.

The growth of euthanasia in Canada is bad enough without fake news stories making it seem worse than it is.

Links to accurate articles about child euthanasia.

Woman pressured boyfriend to suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Conrad Roy

Last February, the Massachusetts high court upheld the the voluntary manslaughter conviction of Michelle Carter for assisting the suicide of Conrad Roy who was 18 at the time of his death. Carter, who was 17 at the time of the death, was sentenced to 15 months in prison. The court found that Carter pressured Conrad to die by suicide.
 
Another young woman has been charged after pressuring or assisting her boyfriend to die by suicide.

Alexander Urtula

Inyoung You (21) has been charged with involuntary manslaughter in the suicide death of Alexander Urtula (22) who had an 18 month relationship. Mark Pratt reported for the Associated Press:

Inyoung You, 21, was “physically, verbally and psychologically abusive” to fellow Boston College student Alexander Urtula during an 18-month relationship, Suffolk District Attorney Rachael Rollins said at a news conference.

You sent Urtula, 22, of Cedar Grove, New Jersey, more than 47,000 text messages in the last two months of the relationship, including many urging him to “go kill yourself” or “go die,” Rollins said. You also tracked Urtula and was nearby when he died in Boston on May 20, the day of his Boston College graduation.

“Many of the messages display the power dynamic of the relationship, wherein Ms. You made demands and threats with the understanding that she had complete and total control over Mr. Urtula both mentally and emotionally,” Rollins said.

According to the Associated Press article You is currently in South Korea.

You is in her native South Korea, and it is unclear when she will be arraigned. Prosecutors are in negotiations with You’s counsel to get her to return to the U.S. voluntarily, but if she does not, Rollins said, she will start extradition proceedings.

Last July, Massachusetts State Senator Barry Finegold and Representative Natalie Higgins introduced Conrad’s Law, a bill to deter suicide coercion. Conrad’s law would punish those who coerce others into committing or attempting to commit suicide, with punishment of up to five years in prison. The bill does not apply to assisted suicide, which is illegal in Massachusetts.

Similar to other assisted suicide cases, the person who dies may have been coerced or encouraged to suicide.

Lawyers for Michelle Carter argued that her texts were constitutionally protected free speech and yet the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld her conviction. The Carter decision has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which hasn’t yet decided whether it will take up the case.

To reach the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, call 1-800-273-TALK (8255). You can also text a crisis counselor by messaging 741741.

Belgian politician promotes euthanasia for "completed life."

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Politicians in the Netherlands have been debating, for several years, a law to permit euthanasia based on “completed life.” 

Gwendolyn Rutten

Gwendolyn Rutten, an Open Vld (liberal) politician was published in De Morgan on October 29 claiming that the “time is ripe” in Belgium to allow euthanasia for “completed life.” Rutten wrote (computer translation):

However, the debate is not over. Legislation must evolve with the times. A few years ago, after an important debate, we made euthanasia possible for skilled minors. This expansion encountered misunderstanding worldwide, but could count on a parliamentary majority in our country. Because there is no age on unbearable suffering….

Rutten argues that Hugo Claus’ death by euthanasia based on dementia, created acceptance of euthanasia for dementia. She then argues the same for completed life (computer translation):

Last weekend Lutgart Simoens, the 91-year-old celebrity of Radio 2, started the debate about completed life in an interview in Het Laatste Nieuws . “She had it,” the newspaper headline. Mrs. Simoens is not incurably ill, she enjoys life, her family, and classical music. She is not tired of life, but satisfied with life. “Give me one reason for the meaning of unbearable suffering. There is none. All I want is to be able to fall asleep calmly, painlessly and before I physically or mentally deteriorate. That should be everyone’s right. I want the legislator to respect that it must have been possible after a completed life. “

Rutten supports Simoens campaign to extend euthanasia to people who simply want to die. Rutten states (computer translation):

For the ground flow in our country, life is something that you as an individual have at your disposal and decide.

The completed life debate brings the euthanasia debate full circle.

The euthanasia lobby argues that euthanasia is not suicide because it is for people who don’t want to die, but want to end their suffering. They then amend their position and state that euthanasia is not suicide because it is for people who want to avoid suffering. Finally they will argue that completed life is not suicide, simply because they say so. 


Completed life not only sounds like suicide, it is suicide. Completed life means that the state provides the means for suicide, not because the person is suffering or dying but because they want to die. Completed life is suicide.

The only response to this debate is don’t legalize euthanasia. 

Once the bright line of killing and doctors are given the legal right to kill by euthanasia, then the only question remaining is who can be killed? The only answer to this question is don’t kill.

A society that is committed to caring for its citizens does not kill its citizens.

Christian, Jewish and Muslim. Declaration against Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.

On October 28, leaders of the Christian, the Jewish and the Muslim faiths signed a Declaration against Euthanasia and assisted suicide. (Link to the Position paper and Declaration).

Based on the arguments and justifications articulated in this position paper, the three Abrahamic monotheistic religions share common goals and are in complete agreement in their approach to end-of-life situations. Accordingly, we affirm that:

➢ Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are inherently and consequentially morally and religiously wrong and should be forbidden with no exceptions. Any pressure upon dying patients to end their lives by active and deliberate actions is categorically rejected.

➢ No health care provider should be coerced or pressured to either directly or indirectly assist in the deliberate and intentional death of a patient through assisted suicide or any form of euthanasia, especially when it is against the religious beliefs of the provider. It has been well accepted throughout the generations that conscientious objection to acts that conflict with a person’s ethical values should be respected. This also remains valid even if such acts have been accepted by the local legal system, or by certain groups of citizens. Moral objections regarding issues of life and death certainly fall into the category of conscientious objection that should be universally respected.

➢ We encourage and support validated and professional palliative care everywhere and for everyone. Even when efforts to continue staving off death seems unreasonably burdensome, we are morally and religiously duty-bound to provide comfort, effective pain and symptoms relief, companionship, care and spiritual assistance to the dying patient and to her/his family.

➢ We commend laws and policies that protect the rights and the dignity of the dying patient, in order to avoid euthanasia and promote palliative care.

➢ We, as a society, must assure that patients’ desire not to be a burden does not inspire them the feeling of being useless and the subsequent unawareness of the value and dignity of their life, which deserves care and support until its natural end.

➢ All health care providers should be duty-bound to create the conditions by which religious assistance is assured to anyone who asks for it, either explicitly or implicitly.

➢ We are committed to use our knowledge and research to shape policies that promote socio-emotional, physical and spiritual care and wellbeing, by providing the utmost information and care to those facing grave illness and death.

➢ We are committed to engage our communities on the issues of bioethics related to the dying patient, as well as to acquaint them with techniques of compassionate companionship for those who are suffering and dying.

➢ We are committed to raising public awareness about palliative care through education and providing resources concerning treatments for the suffering and the dying.

➢ We are committed to providing succor to the family and to the loved ones of dying patients.

➢ We call upon all policy-makers and health-care providers to familiarize themselves with this wide-ranging Abrahamic monotheistic perspective and teaching in order to provide the best care to dying patients and to their families who adhere to the religious norms and guidance of their respective religious traditions.

➢ We are committed to involving the other religions and all people of goodwill.

Marieke Vervoort: an athlete’s influence used for harm?

This article was published by the disability rights group Toujours Vivant – Not Dead Yet on October 28.

Taylor Hyatt

By Taylor Hyatt 
Policy Analyst & Outreach Coordinator,
Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet

After the 2016 Paralympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Belgian wheelchair sprinter Marieke Vervoort made two startling announcements. First, she was retiring; the Rio Paralympics would be her last sporting event. Second, she was considering euthanasia due to the progression of her neuromuscular condition.

Ms. Vervoort was an accomplished athlete. She won the gold medal in the 100-metre, and silver in the 200-metre sprints at the 2012 London Games, as well as the silver medal in the 400m and bronze in the 100m in Rio. Until that point, sport had given her “a reason to keep living.” Sadly, Ms. Vervoort has followed through with her plan; according to a statement posted on the website of her hometown of Diest, she was euthanized on October 22.

Since her desire to die became public knowledge, Ms. Vervoort made many public statements in favour of euthanasia. She told CNN that she “regained control” of her life when she was approved for the procedure in 2008. She considered euthanasia to be “going to sleep … something peaceful” and a way out of unbearable suffering. Ms. Vervoort enjoyed the feeling of “rest” that her “papers” gave her, and was relieved that she did not have to end her life in a more traditional, painful way.

Ms. Vervoort lived with severe pain and a lack of sleep because of her disability. She did not have support to manage these aspects of her condition. This raises questions, such as:

  • What palliative care measures did Ms. Vervoort receive to help manage her changing condition? We already know that palliative care is often unavailable and underfunded. As well, most doctors don’t know about advanced pain management techniques.
  • Was she supported by a peer counselor as she grappled with the drastic changes associated with retirement and a progressive condition? The “better dead than disabled” message was probably harder to counter because her identity had been tied to sports for so long. After devoting so much time to her career, the question “Who is Marieke Vervoort, if not an athlete?” would prove difficult to answer. However, like all of us, Ms. Vervoort’s worth is not tied to her supposed usefulness in a particular domain. Human beings are not cartons of milk – they do not have a “best before” date! Nor would retirement take away from her accomplishments.
  • Did anyone one match her interest in death with encouragement to live, or present her with other options?
  • If Vervoort was immersed in pro-suicide messages, did she eventually feel like she had no choice but to act on them?

Ms. Vervoort made her suicide a public matter. She used her influence to convince others that ending one’s life is an acceptable response to difficult circumstances. I imagine a young admirer of Ms. Vervoort hearing her say that death is both a valid and accessible way to cope with distress, and it breaks my heart. I’ve never been particularly interested in sports, but I have been let down by a famous person I looked up to.

Steven Fletcher and Taylor Hyatt

By high school, politics – and the underlying ethical debates – had become my passion. A teacher noticed my growing interest and pointed out that MP Steven Fletcher, a disabled man, served in the House of Commons. Mr. Fletcher and I eventually met – not on a class tour of Parliament, as I had initially hoped, but on opposite sides of the euthanasia debate in the Supreme Court. Thankfully, I was well into my university studies at that time. Although I was disappointed, I was well aware of the risks of putting famous people on pedestals.

Public figures are human and fallible, and sometimes don’t live up to our expectations. On the other hand, these same figures must remember that many people, especially youth, look to them as examples. Combined with the lack of role models for disabled people to identify with, and the effects of suicide contagion, one woman’s untimely death could have a disturbing ripple effect.

May Marieke Vervoort rest in peace. I hope all who failed her by allowing her wish for death to go unchallenged have a change of heart. If not, more young fans could be motivated to follow in her footsteps, and more lives could be lost.

CBC radio propaganda promoting euthanasia for dementia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

CBC radio produced a “documentary” that aired on October 27 titled Ten Minutes to Midnight that is more of a propaganda production promoting euthanasia for people with dementia than a documentary investigating how Canada’s euthanasia law may apply to people with dementia.

I refer to it as propaganda because the documentary is promoting euthanasia for dementia, rather than simply discussing the issue. For instance the program ends by stating:

“The more we talk about this topic, the more comfortable we’ll be, the better our deaths will be, however we want to shape them,”…

Canada’s euthanasia law appears to not permit euthanasia for dementia alone but a closer reading of the law indicates that the physician defines a patient’s competency to consent. Canada’s euthanasia law, states:

241.2 (3) Before a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner provides a person with medical assistance in dying, the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner must
(a) be of the opinion that the person meets all of the criteria set out in subsection (1)

This means that the medical or nurse practitioner is only required to “be of the opinion” that the person meets the criteria of the law. Canada’s euthanasia law can and is being interpreted in a very wide manner.

The purpose of this program was to inform Canadians with dementia that they qualify for euthanasia. The program states:

Wilson died with medical assistance on Oct. 29, 2017. In February 2018, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia opened an investigation into the three doctors involved, as reported in the Globe and Mail.

At the same time, Green’s colleagues at CAMAP were assembling a new guidance document that outlined the circumstances under which people with dementia might be eligible to receive MAID.

Ten months after the Wilson investigation began, the college cleared the doctors involved of any wrongdoing.

In the spring of 2019, after extensive conversations with colleagues and legal scholars, Green decided she was ready to reconsider helping Gayle. She did a second assessment.

By then, Gayle’s condition had deteriorated. His mental processing had slowed, and he struggled in conversation.

“I was able to determine that Gayle still knew what was going on around him and with him. He understood that he had dementia, that it had progressed,” Green said.

“At that point I really believed that Gayle had both capacity and was suffering intolerably.”

On May 9, she approved his MAID application.

But in July, Gayle woke from a nap and, for the first time, didn’t recognize his wife. Barbara worried he had lost capacity and would no longer be eligible for MAID.

The first point is that the doctors that were involved with Wilson’s euthanasia death were cleared of wrong-doing. 

The second point is that Dr Green decided, that in her opinion Gayle was capable of consenting to his death. The article went further:

Green said the case may still spark concerns about whether the law is being expanded, but she argued it does not represent a “so-called slippery slope.”

“This is not an expansion of our law … This is a maturing of the understanding of what we’re doing,” she said.

Green states that the continual expansion of the euthanasia law is not a slippery slope, but rather a maturing of the law. The euthanasia lobby denies that a slippery slope exists in Canada to not create a problem in other jurisdictions, such as Australia or New Zealand, who are debating euthanasia.

Canada’s national broadcasting company regularly publishes articles that promote the expansion of euthanasia in Canada. This broadcast is one more CBC propaganda production.
 
The fast expansion of euthanasia in Canada. 

In July, Alan Nichols, also from BC, died by euthanasia, even though he was not physically ill but rather living with chronic depression. His family told the doctors that Alan was not competent and they urged the doctors not to euthanize Alan, but to no avail.

Last month, a Québec court expanded Canada’s euthanasia law by striking down the requirement that a person’s natural death must be reasonably forseeable. The federal and Québec governments did not appeal the decision, thus removing the “terminal illness” safeguard within the law.

Further to that, the number of euthanasia deaths is growing quickly in Canada. The 2018 data indicated a 50% increase in deaths over 2017 and the recent Ontario data indicates that there were 368 reported euthanasia deaths in the first quarter of 2019 and 519 reported euthanasia deaths in the third quarter of 2019.

New Zealand parliament approves referendum on euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The New Zealand parliament has been debating a euthanasia bill for many months. On October 23, the New Zealand parliament agreed to a referendum enabling the people to decide if they want to legalize euthanasia, based on the David Seymour euthanasia bill.

According to a Newshub article, the decision to have a euthanasia referendum passed by a close vote (63 to 57). The referendum was approved after the New Zealand First party stated that they would not support the “End of Life Choice” euthanasia bill without a referendum.

Channelnewsasia reported that National lawmaker Harete Hipango described the euthanasia legislation as “abhorrent, repugnant and also dangerous”.

“This is a kill bill. My focus and my intention is that I seek to kill this bill because of the repugnancy of what it intends to do,” he said. 

“The state has a duty of care to protect our most vulnerable.” 

The referendum will take place at the same time as the general election next year.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition does not take a position on whether a referendum is a good way to deal with the issue but we will be providing information and educational research to the people who lead the No campaign.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started