Avertissement aux parents: Le Gouvernement du Québec ouvre la porte à l’euthanasie des enfants
La Coalition des médecins pour la justice sociale implore les citoyens de s’informer et de s’impliquer, et présente une plainte formelle au Procureur-général du Canada.
Pour communiquer avec votre representant, veuillez réferer au document ici.
Si le projet de loi est adopté, la porte sera non seulement grande ouverte à des personnes qui ne sont pas en phase terminale d’une maladie mais aussi pour permettre l’euthanasie des enfants, selon la Commission des
2 days prior to « a vote in principal » of Bill 52 at the Quebec National Assembly, the Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice invited an Oregon physician, Dr Kenneth Stevens, who described how Oregon’s physician assisted suicide law had caused hundreds of physician assisted suicides over the past fifteen years. He also described how if the current Bill 52 on euthanasia is passed in Quebec, hundreds of Quebecers will die annually at the hands of doctors.
Dr Kenneth Stevens is a leading cancer specialist with more than 40 years’ experience. He is also a Professor Emeritus and a former Chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology, Oregon Health & Sciences University, and Portland, Oregon. He has treated thousands of patients with cancer.
According to Oregon law, patients must be considered to have less than 6 months to live. Dr Stevens stated that the ability to diagnose and predict the survival of people at the « end of life » with months to years to live is inaccurate. Many patients who are considered « terminal » or « end of life » are not necessarily dying.
Dr Stevens described one patient in his 40’s who was diagnosed in 2004 with advanced cancer with 13 tumors in his liver and more than 70 tumors throughout his lung. The original biopsy showed « adenocarcinoma of the liver. » He was told that he would probably be dead in 6 weeks. After the bad news, he sold off many of his assets and bought his burial plot. When he realized that he was feeling well he sought second opinions. After consulting other pathologists he was finally told that the condition was « epithelioid hemangioendothelioma » which can be chronic and not fatal. Now 9 years later he is doing well and happy to be alive without any cancer treatments.
Dr Stevens described how hundreds of so-called « hopeless cases » with treatment can go on to survive many profitable years or be cured. Hospital administrators and doctors would have abandoned and not treated these people. Four other of his patients were discussed. One was a 30 year old woman with liver cancer which had metastasized to her chest and was told « she did not have long to live. » With combined radiation/chemotherapy she lived over 20 years with quality life. An 18 year old college man with glioblastoma multiforme (the most malignant brain cancer) was treated. He graduated from college, law school, passed the Oregon bar exam, married had 2 children, was elected to city council and survived over 20 years. Another 50 year old woman with advanced lymphoma, was bedridden and not able to stand or walk. She received radiation treatments with total resolution of her disease. All these patients were treated despite « poor prognosis » and other physicians questioning the reasonability of such « aggressive and futile treatment » for these very severe conditions.
According to Dr Stevens; other people are encouraged to give up on care because of the existence of the assisted suicide law. The message of the proponents of assisted suicide is that « doctors can do a better job of killing you than caring for you. »
Present at the conference and giving her testimony was a patient of Dr Stevens, Jeanette Hall. She was diagnosed in 2000 with lower bowel cancer and told that she had six months to a year to live. She considered chemotherapy and radiation therapy futile. She asked for assisted suicide as provided by the state of Oregon. Dr Stevens disagreed with her decision for assisted suicide and was able to convince her to undergo radiation and chemotherapy. She is now thrilled to be alive 13 years after undergoing cancer therapy and not killing herself with a lethal dose of barbiturates.
Dr. Stevens believes that people who are not dying are being lured into assisted suicide. They are misguided to believe that their medical condition is irreversible and discouraged to undergo any treatment that is « overaggressive and futile. » Dr Steven’s states that « overaggressive and futile therapy » is a relative term—and can only be defined in hindsight. If a patient undergoes therapy for a very severe condition and survives—such therapy is not overaggressive and futile because it was successful. People are being denied therapies that could prolong and save their lives. Dr Stevens also talked about how financial incentives in Oregon’s government health plan steers patients to suicide. In Oregon, the government insurance sets limits on cancer care. Dr. Stevens warned that if assisted suicide or euthanasia is legalized in Quebec, then the Quebec government health program could follow a similar pattern—that is limit coverage for cancer care and thus encourage euthanasia.
Dr. Paul Saba, a family physician and co-president of the Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice explained how Québec’s proposed euthanasia law would encourage people, including young adults 18 and over with treatable conditions such as depression, chronic lung and heart disease, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia to agree to euthanasia and end their lives.
The Coalition’s position against euthanasia is supported by the World Medical Association representing nine million physicians.
In 2008, Barbara Wagner wanted to continue fighting for her life and continuing cancer treatment. Her doctor recommended a treatment that could help extend her life, but the government sent her a letter declining coverage for the drug, but offering to pay for comfort care including physician aid in dying…
Dans l’article de La Presse le 5 octobre 2013, le Dr Gaétan Barrette s’interroge sur les risques de dérapage si la loi 52 sur l’aide médicale à mourir franchit avec succès sa dernière étape. Oublions les hypothèses au sujet du bien-fondé de l’euthanasie et discutons des faits suscitant une vigoureuse remise en question de cette procédure.
1- Neuf millions de médecins de L’Association Médicale Mondiale (AMM) à travers 100 pays condamnent l’euthanasie. Pourquoi ?
2- L’euthanasie autorisée légalement en Belgique montre de sérieux dérapages en étant utilisée chez des sujets non en « fin de vie ». Dans ce pays, des gens sont euthanasiés à cause de l’épuisement de vivre ou d’un état dépressif, sans préavis à la famille. Un patient Nathan Verhelst (« Nancy ») de 44 ans qui n’était pas heureux avec la chirurgie pour changer son sexe fut euthanasié le 30 septembre, 2013. En 2003, toujours en Belgique, l’adoption d’une loi autorisant l’euthanasie entraîna 235 décès prématurés. En 2012, ce nombre s’éleva à 1,432 décès. Actuellement, le sénat belge discute de la possibilité d’élargir l’accès à l’euthanasie aux mineurs souffrants et affectés par une maladie sévère. Au Pays-Bas, cette loi permet déjà l’euthanasie pour des nouveaux nés et des jeunes enfants.
3- Les balises mises en place en Belgique n’assurent pas une protection complète.Le tiers des patients euthanasiés en Belgique n’aurait pas été en mesure de donner un consentement libre et informé. Toujours en Belgique, presque 50% des cas d’euthanasie n’ont pas été rapportés aux autorités.
4- Il n’existe pas de modèle fiable pour déterminer avec précision la durée de vie des patients avant leur décès. Les modèles de calcul sophistiqués utilisés pour prédire la fin de vie dans les prochains six mois chez les patients porteurs de maladies chroniques montrent une précision de 50%.
5- L’euthanasie est discriminatoire pour les patients souffrant de problèmes de santé mentale. Ces patients ne sont pas en stade de vie terminale et à cause de leur maladie, ils ne sont pas en mesure de prendre une décision libre et éclairée. Le droit d’accéder à l’euthanasie crée des risques non négligeables tels que les décès prématurés chez ceux qui souffrent de conditions potentiellement réversibles.
6- La tentation est grande de réaliser des millions de dollars d’économie par le biais de l’euthanasie. L’euthanasie est une approche très efficace pour épargner des sommes importantes et les soins palliatifs exigent des ressources financières beaucoup plus lourdes. Au Québec, 20% seulement des patients ayant besoin de soins palliatifs ont accès à ces services.En Oregon, le traitement pour un cancer doit obtenir un taux de réussite de plus de 50% pendant 24 mois—même pour les personnes à jeune âge, pour que le gouvernement accepte de supporter le coût des soins médicaux.
7- En légalisant l’euthanasie, les citoyens du Québec prennent l’allure de citoyens de seconde zone en comparaison avec les criminels.
En effet, nous avons aboli la peine capitale pour éviter la mort d’innocents suite à des erreurs judiciaires et les gouvernements investissent des sommes astronomiques pour les services de réclusion.
Les sept points apportés sont des faits clairement établis. La légalisation de l’euthanasie a bien du mal à justifier sa présence dans une société qui a choisi de défendre les droits individuels et qui prône le respect de la vie.
On the last day of public hearings on » end of life care , » the Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice invited Dr. Georges Casteur , former medical director of a neurological rehabilitation center in Ostend , Belgium(1976 to 2012) to present results of 10 years of euthanasia in his country. According to Dr. Casteur, safeguards and controls in Belgium do not provide complete protection. According to studies, one-third of patients “euthanized” were not able to give free and informed consent. Almost 50% of “euthanasia cases” were not reported to authorities. He described the steep slippery slope and “the culture of death” that is now installed in Belgium. He gave several examples of people “exhausted of life, or depressed » who were given lethal injections without prior notification to their family members. Recently a 44 year old patient named Nathan Verhelst ( » Nancy « ) unhappy with a sex-change surgery was euthanized on Sept. 30, 2013. In contrast, several of Dr. Casteur’s patients have changed their decisions to end their lives after talking with him or his colleagues. Last year one of his patients with severe quadriplegia, following an accident, was referred to a Brussels hospital for three weeks of rehabilitation after euthanasia was already programmed. After a chance conversation with a physician at the clinic, he changed his mind and is now enjoying life. He also described how pressures such as financial problems, family members, heirs, health care providers and administrators lacking hospital beds, can prevent people from making “free and unbiased decisions.” Also there is a lack of independence of the second consulting physician who is often a member of the same team with a goal of promoting euthanasia. He showed the similarities of the Belgian and proposed Quebec law. He argued that the same tragic consequences will happen if euthanasia is legalized in Quebec. Furthermore Dr Casteur is astonished that the word euthanasia is not used in the Bill 52. However there is one major difference: Belgian law is a federal law unlike the proposed Quebec law which is a provincial.
Also present were a couple from Lachine, Quebec, Jacques Ro:y and his wife Diane Bergevin, whose life has been challenged since 2011 by two tumors, one behind the left eye and another in her lung. Despite the severity of the diagnosis, they are both relieved by the good response to treatment. Mr. Roy discussed the potential dangers of a poor prognosis given by some doctors and a variety of external pressures that may endanger the health and survival of patients. He is concerned that the new law will « encourage people to look for the easiest and the fastest fix- the deadly needle. Administrators, government and some doctors will benefit. It is clear that it is more expensive to treat diseases. So even though there may be a chance to survive or live longer, some doctors will quickly ship patients off to funeral homes. »
Dr. Paul Saba who is a family physician and co-chair of the Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice explained the fatal consequences of euthanasia and the loss of individual autonomy if Bill 52 is passed. Euthanasia also creates significant risks such as premature deaths in those with potentially reversible conditions. In Oregon, before the government agrees to pay the cost of medical care even for young people, cancer treatment must obtain a success rate of over 50% for 24 months. People who could potentially live a long time or even get cured from a cancer diagnosis must pay out of pocket or accept the free lethal cocktail.
To make a donation in support of the coalition’s work please click here