r Georges Casteur présentera les conclusions de 10 ans d’expérience de l’euthanasie

Date : 10 octobre 2013Georges Casteur presente a Quebec contre la loi 52
Heure : 12H15

Endroit : Édifice André-Laurendeau
Salon Jacques-L’Archevêque
1050, rue des Parlementaires Québec QC

Lors de la dernière journée de l’audience publique sur les « soins en fin de vie » Dr Georges Casteur, un médecin belge, directeur médical IMBO (hôpital de revalidation locomotrice et neurologique à Ostende de 1976 à 2012) va présenter les conclusions de 10 ans d’expérience de l’euthanasie. Il va témoigner des conséquences et de la pente glissante qui s’est installée dans son pays .

Nous aurons aussi l’occasion de rencontrer un couple québécois, Monsieur Jacques Roy et sa conjointe Madame Diane Bergevin, qui a vécu des moments difficiles avec l’apparition de deux tumeurs, l’une derrière l’œil gauche et l’autre au poumon qui ont nécessité une chirurgie en 2011. Malgré la gravité de la maladie, le couple se réjouit d’une amélioration inattendue suite aux traitements. M. Roy va discuter des dangers d’un pronostic trop sombre établi par des médecins et « les pressions de l’extérieur » qui peuvent mettre en péril la santé et la survie des patients.

Le docteur Paul Saba, un médecin de famille et co-président de la Coalition des médecins pour la justice sociale va démontrer les risques mortels inhérents à l’euthanasie dans le monde actuel et la perte de l’autonomie individuelle si le projet de loi 52 voit le jour.

What is Bill 52 Quebec – Dr. Paul Saba : Hot debate continues over Quebec “euthanasia” bill

From the Radio-Canada article: Hot debate continues over Quebec “euthanasia” bill. Dr. Saba explains in this interview  the implications of Bill 52 in Quebec.

RCI Radio Interview with Dr Paul Saba - What is bill 52 Quebec - Euthanasia

Euthanasia – dangerous for patients not at the end of life, illegal for doctors and a conflict of interest for the government

MONTREAL, Sept. 24, 2013 /CNW Telbec/ – At the end-of- life public hearings in Quebec City on September 24, 2013, the Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice criticizes the very foundations of Bill 52, which aims to promote an illegal and criminal medical procedure that contravenes medical ethics. In support of this assertion, Dr. Paul Saba, co-chair of the Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice, fiercely criticizes the lack of ethics of the law, which deviates from the basic principle which guarantees the safety and life of each person. « We must remember that 9, 000,000 doctors, who are part of the World Medical Association in 100 countries, reject euthanasia as a medical practice. » The risks are real and apparent in four countries allowing euthanasia or assisted suicide (Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Switzerland) and in two American states (Washington, Oregon). We must not forget that there are 192 countries where euthanasia is illegal and not allowed.

The slippery slope is real. Dr. Saba cited the increase of euthanasia in Belgium where death by injection has increased substantially from 235 in 2003, rising to 1,432 in 2012. During a visit to Montreal, Professor Tom Mortier severely criticized the death of his mother by euthanasia at the age of 64 years on April 19, 2012. His mother suffered from depression. Without prior notification to the family Mrs. DeTroyer was euthanized, leaving two adult children and three grandchildren in grief and in shock. According to Dr. Mortier, « In Belgium, we are ten years ahead of Quebec. Originally, the criteria and restrictions for the euthanasia were similar to those of Bill 52. What is happening currently in Belgium offers a perspective of what can happen in Quebec in ten years if Bill 52 is adopted. « 


Currently, the Belgian Senate is discussing the possibility of extending access to euthanasia for minors suffering and affected by severe disease. In the Netherlands, the Groningen Protocol was passed into law in 2005 allowing euthanasia for newborns and young children who are « without hope of a good life. » (35 BMJ, 2006).

International studies clearly demonstrate that safeguards and controls don’t work.  32% of patients euthanized in Belgium did not give free and informed consent (J Medical Association Canada, 15 June 2010). Also in Belgium, almost 50% of euthanasia cases were not reported to the authorities (British Medical Journal, October 5, 2010). In the Netherlands, many patients were not evaluated by a second doctor (BMJ, 24 September 2005). In Oregon, 20% of depressed patients do not have access to a psychiatrist or psychological evaluation before being euthanized (BMJ, 2 August 2008).

After analyzing 57 reports and studies in Current Oncology in 2011, Dr. Jose Pereira, director of palliative care at the University of Ottawa Hospital, concluded that safeguards and controls for euthanasia are an illusion.

The risks to euthanatized patients are real because of the inaccuracy in terms of « prognosis « . Under Bill 52, the patients with severe and incurable disease associated with significant and irreversible deterioration in their medical condition are candidates for euthanasia. For those patients with severe and chronic diseases, the prediction of life expectancy for the next six months is about 50 %, which corresponds to a coin toss. Even for patients with cancer, the prediction rate of death is not always that accurate. A case in point; Dr. Kenneth Stevens, radiation oncologist at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, Oregon, presented an affidavit to Superior Court in Trois Rivieres, Quebec (2012). One of his patients, Jeannette Hall, then in her fifties, asked to die by assisted suicide 13 years ago because of a newly diagnosed cancer rather than undergoing cancer treatment Fortunately for her, Dr. Stevens refused the request, and Mrs. Hall agreed to treat her cancer. Today, Ms. Hall is still alive and happy.

In 2002, euthanasia was legalized in the Netherlands. Initially it was reserved for people with cancer and other physical illnesses. However, in the case of one Dutch woman, she convinced her doctors to take her life just because she was deeply depressed after a divorce. In another case, a young anorexic woman insisted on dying, and the committee of doctors decided that it was acceptable under the new law.

In such cases, it must be concluded that these two women lost their lives mainly on the ground that they could not find effective solutions to their problems in their health care system.

In Quebec, treatments in many cases are not sufficient or timely enough due to a lack of financial resources.

Dr. Farquhar describes in his analysis, how the system is discriminatory to patients suffering from mental health problems and is concerned that Bill 52 will impact negatively on psychiatric patients. As a psychiatrist he is concerned that people with mental illness could choose euthanasia because they lack medical and psychiatric care.

In his legal brief, Mr. Dominic Talarico is concerned that the proposed law disregards the intrinsic value of human life of its citizens both from a legal and medical perspective. The right of access to euthanasia creates significant risks, such as death in those who suffer from potentially reversible conditions.

In his advocacy for patients’ rights, he claims that the proposed Bill 52 presents a high risk of causing human tragedies and it should not be passed.

Hélène Beaudin related how she lost her father in 2010 through chronic illness and is now accompanying her mother diagnosed with terminal cancer in a palliative care unit. She clearly does not want euthanasia for her mother or others,

Active euthanasia, framed in the present legislation, may appear as a choice in a society open to bold and new changes in its orientations and policies. In fact, the proposed law 52 illustrates the lack of coherency on the part of the government and reflects a disregard for human life. A question must be raised. Is the government in a conflict of interest by benefiting from millions of dollars saved by reducing health services and promoting euthanasia at the same time?

Finally, Dr. Saba asks doctors not to perform euthanasia or refer anyone for euthanasia because euthanasia contravenes legal and ethical practice of modern medicine. Despite this, the government wants to force doctors to do what is illegal and unethical.

SOURCE: Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice


For further information:


Dr. Paul Saba 514-886-3447 or 514-249-8541
Web: Coalitionmd.org

L’euthanasie – dangereux pour les patients non en fin de vie, illégale pour les médecins et un conflit d’intérêt pour le gouvernement


La Coalition des médecins pour la justice sociale présentera son mémoire sur le projet de loi n°52 – Loi concernant les soins de fin de vie, qui sera déposé en commission parlementaire le 24 septembre 2013 à 19h30.

Dr Paul Saba va démontrer comment le projet de la loi 52 va à l’encontre des valeurs fondamentales de la médecine, et comment les balises et contrôles prévus par le législateur seront incapables de protéger la vie et la santé des personnes en « fin de vie » et « non en fin de vie ».

Me Dominique Talarico va présenter les arguments légaux pour expliquer les dérives d’un système juridique et médical et les risques non négligeables d’un accès à l’euthanasie.

Mme Hélène Beaudin, qui a perdu son père en 2010 et accompagne sa mère atteinte du cancer en fin de vie, ne souhaite l’euthanasie ni pour sa mère ni pour autrui, et va présenter son témoignage.

La triste histoire de la mort de la mère (64 ans) d’un  professeur belge, permise par l’application de la loi sur l’euthanasie de Belgique, découlant de sa dépression, sera discutée.

SOURCE : Coalition des médecins pour la justice sociale

L’euthanasie : des soins à rabais pour les plus vulnérables

Le projet de loi que souhaite promulguer notre gouvernement constitue une façon rapide d’abandonner à eux-mêmes les patients en fin de vie dont les besoins en soins sont très particuliers.
En vertu de ce projet de loi, le gouvernement y va à grands coups de promesses en matière de soins palliatifs afin de rassurer les personnes en phase terminale qu’ils recevront de l’aide adaptée. Mais que se passera-t-il si les efforts promis ne marchent pas : les patients auront le « libre«  choix de se tourner vers une piqûre fatale pour mettre un terme à leur souffrance.
Il s’agit là d’un beau portrait, mais ce n’est qu’un mirage qui n’a aucune commune mesure avec la réalité. De fait, il y a fort à parier que le gouvernement n’investira pas les millions nécessaires pour donner un accès sans faille aux soins palliatifs. Lire la suite