The EXIT euthanasia blog

When society advocates painful death

exiteuthanasia — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 22:19:53 +0000

Lord Falconer's Commission on Assisted Dying - moving forward or blowing in the wind?

Looking at the current news stories, three salient events highlight the talk around euthanasia: and their basic message is, society doesn’t care. It would prefer you to die badly.

Lord Falconer’s long-awaited Commission on Assisted Dying report was released a few days ago. The usual flurry of controversy. The shoring up of opinion by strident anti-euthanasia talking heads, the usual warm glow of supporters claiming it was a move in the right direction. A move in the right direction for whom?

Not the people needing assistance in dying now. Not the people for whom life has become unbearable and their illness unrelievable. Not the people who might have chosen a peaceful death with a ‘Gladd Bag’ produced by an elderly lady, since hounded by the FBI. Not for people like Lauren Gill and Jamie Chianese, who desperately ended their lives last month with horribly toxic chemicals in the back of a car. Not for those who might have received expert support and counselling if archaic attitudes didn’t prevent them from coming forward. Not those who must die alone rather than have a loved one present. Not for this organisation – which would like to become redundant if the state would look after the needs of persons rationally and reasonably wanting to draw their life to a peaceful close.

The end result is, society puts peaceful means of dying as far out of people’s reach as it can. North Sea gas, barbiturates, Gladd bags. UK law prevents loving support being given in person to some dying people at the time they most really need it. It says, “Don’t use helium, don’t use pills, and by law have a catalytic converter fitted to your car in case you were thinking of exhaust fumes . . . instead, use noxious and corrosive household chemical, dangle from the end of a rope, or throw yourself into traffic.” Because determinedly suicidal people, whether rational and terminally ill or not, will find a way to die by suicide. Society merely mandates the most accessible means. In this respect, our British society has the mentality of a torturer.

Nice try, Lord Falconer. Better luck next time.

Sorrow, dignity, death & anti-freeze? Exit mourns the death of Joe Bodolai

exiteuthanasia — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:32:01 +0000

The view from near the top of Mount Pinatubo. When the volcano erupted in 1991, it was the second largest terrestrial eruption of the 20th century. 800 died. Tens of thousands were evacuated, saving many lives. Much of the surrounding area now resembles moon-craters and is very desolate.

When does a self-willed death cease to be ‘rational’? ‘Dignified?’ ‘Justifiable’? Do we ever use society norms, the amorphous mass of common sentiment, to calculate what is a ‘good death’? “Yes, he lived a good life, he was 96, he was terminally ill with cancer, and decided to check out from living a week earlier using barbiturates or a helium bag.”

One norm that also gains respect is the mutual love of two people for one another. The ‘till death do us part’ syndrome. There is something heart-warming to all but the most hardened ‘pro-lifers’ about two people, equally old and ill, who both leave this world holding each other’s hands. A very rare occurrence of course – as statistics tend to be against us in the ‘mutual illness timing’ department and, for many others, in the lasting love department. Failing that, there may be sympathetic relatives, a son or daughter, or some like-minded ‘right-to-die’ supporters to produce that momentary blessing (so-called), the dopamine high, the sense that one is both loved and justified.

Joe Bodolai’s death hits the news last week. He recalls all the good and less good things in his life. A successful public career most of us could only imagine. The love of a good woman. Opportunities to use his most remarkable talents successfully. He also recalls the loss of these things. He says his farewells discreetly. Posts his last thoughts on a blog. Then drinks a bottle of anti-freeze. (Mixed with Gatorade – an easy but unpleasant way to go as the liquid destroys major internal organs.)

He was in his older years: but not old enough to tick most people’s ‘tired-of-life’ box. He had struggled with illness: but not one that was terminal enough or ‘respectable’ enough to elicit widespread sympathy. Probably few people, if any, would have supported his decision (including right-to-die societies). For most of us, the vision that life, after material things, after fame and fortune, after the close bond with others (or another), after all these vanish from our fading eyesight and disappearing heartbeat – this moment is reserved until just before death. When it comes earlier, we’d probably invoke social services or a course of anti-depressants.

Yet there is little logic to this . . . other than the instinct to get by, to go through the motions for another day. “This is what people do!” screamed Meryl Streep, in The Hours, to the dying poet. “They stay alive for each other!”

Joe Bodolai had given much to us, the ‘others.’ Immortal lines like, “Can God make something heavier than He can lift?” The Canadian comedy writer had moved back to America to write the multi- award-winning, Saturday Night Live. His humour was memorable for its sharp political and observational insight and wit. After his death last week, his suicide note went viral.

Sometimes I too, like the poet, feel I have given ‘enough’ in this life to loved ones and others, and that I would like to go at the time of my choosing. Especially if my giving simply begets a sense of inevitable loss in those loved ones, as it does in me. (“What is the ultimate point?” one night ask.) On other days, I see life as a journey and adventure, one where I must pick up my sturdy hill-walking staff and at very least drag myself across the next mountain. Maybe the view will be worth sending a note home about.

We come into this world pretty well alone. The cold air: maybe a slap to get us to breathe it. Ultimately we all die alone, and without even the token umbilical cord of affection. And some, those less fortunate, just die more alone than others.

IF THIS WERE THE LAST DAY OF YOUR LIFE, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? Read Joe Bodolai’s suicide note
Can God Make Something Heavier Than He Can Lift? (JB blog post)
Newspaper report (includes his video creations, including Wayne’s World)

Responsible caring with dementia & euthanasia requests

exiteuthanasia — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 18:02:01 +0000

When you tick off various boxes on your living will document, the ones where you might have dementia are always problematic. Euthanasia in cases of dementia raises even bigger questions of voluntariness.

I have known ‘right-to-die’ supporters who say that if they no longer know what is happening, or who they are any more, then they would rather not stay alive. But I’ve also known other ‘right-to-die’ supporters who say that, if they seem not unduly unhappy, and there are people willing and able to care for them, then they would want to stay alive. A real difficulty occurs if someone has a clear and persistent wish to end their life in the event of severe dementia (with or without active assistance) but then expresses a wish – however ill-formed and confused – to stay alive. In that situation, most carers on either side of the debate agree that one has to respect the wishes or apparent wishes of the person standing before them.

The latest Dutch case involves a woman who, at the precise moment of the application of euthanasia, was not always completely competent. To get some context, it is maybe useful to compare this case with that of a 65 year old man whose euthanasia was reported in 2005. He had had Alzheimer’s disease for three years, and since his diagnosis, had said that he did not wish to endure the full course of the illness. In the previous year he had made repeated requests for assistance to end his life. The doctor had judged him to be suffering unbearably. The man was conscious that he could no longer function independently and faced the future prospect of increasing dementia. Whereas the more recent case involves a woman who it seems had already reached that later stage in the illness.

A decision to end one’s life and a decision to fight on are not equal sides of the same coin. Even less so if a third party is involved. A decision to stay alive is (hopefully) reversible: a decision to die is not. Yet this is complicated by the fact that many people who anticipate an unbearable state in which they would not want to continue (whether physical, such as multiple sclerosis, or mental, such as advanced dementia) know that they would not be able to do anything – either by their own hand or that of another – if they leave it till later. So some people end their lives before they really want to, just to avoid a future state from which they cannot escape.

The Dutch law has a careful and extensive system of review for all applications for euthanasia. But the bare bones can be summarised:

The requirements of due care (referred to in Article 293 para.2 of the Penal Code) mean that the physician:

holds the conviction that the request by the patient was voluntary and well-considered,
holds the conviction that the patient’s suffering was lasting and unbearable,
has informed the patient about the situation he was in and about his prospects,
and the patient hold the conviction that there was no other reasonable solution for the situation he was in,
has consulted at least one other, independent physician who has seen the patient and has given his written opinion on the requirements of due care, and
has terminated a life or assisted in a suicide with due care.

There are various safeguards embedded here that would be difficult to replicate in the UK. Primarily, the doctor-patient relationship in the Netherlands is based on the doctor personally knowing the patient over a period of time.

But the other big difference is that the Dutch euthanasia law, in contrast to attempts at legislation elsewhere, focusses on the bigger picture. The aim is to alleviate unrelievable suffering that, in the patient’s perspective, is totally unbearable. There are checks and balances, and review committees to ensure that all other courses (such as appropriate palliative care) have been exhausted. But the objective is to uphold the spirit of good and humane practice rather than a check-box list of who ‘qualifies.’

This is clear in subjective phrases such as, the doctor . . . “holds the conviction . . .”. This might be usefully compared to the English legal test for medical negligence (known as the ‘Bolam’ test) that says, “If a doctor reaches the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion, he is not negligent.” In other words, the doctor is to some extent judged by his or her peers.

Confusion can arise over the fact that medical negligence essentially rests on medical knowledge, and is therefore a medical judgement call that can reasonably judged as right or wrong. But a conviction about a patient’s wishes is not a medical one: it is a human or ethical one. Medical expertise is not a determining factor.

So can the doctor’s conviction (in the Netherlands) be ethically justified? The justification is not that it is made on the basis of medical facts, but that it is made by someone who a) has close personal knowledge of the patient and b) has a doctor’s duty of care. The doctor’s decision is subject to review and criminal sanctions if found wanting, but it means essentially that a human but responsible decision can be taken in an accountable way.

If governed by more archaic rules, the woman in this case would have had to try to end her life earlier, probably while it still had value to her. We can therefore argue that the more holistic approach of the Dutch system means that she lived longer. Even if this was not the case here (as I suspect it may well have been) the principle holds true, and the Dutch are to be complimented on the sensitive and sophisticated approach.

References and further reading:
First euthanasia in Netherlands of severe Alzheimer’s patient performed (new)
Dutch approve euthanasia for a patient with Alzheimer’s disease (BMJ 2005)
Alzheimer’s disease and life termination: the Dutch debate (Bioethica Forum journal)
End-of-Life Practices in the Netherlands (NEJM study)
21 dementia sufferers killed under Dutch euthanasia law (Christian Institute)
Key Dutch cases (seminal legal debates reported by NVVE)
Dutch law on assisted suicide and ending life on request (statute)

See also: Helium and dementia

How euthanasia offers the promise of hope

exiteuthanasia — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:36:47 +0000

In a few hours time, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, the Winter Solstice will be upon us. It is the time of the longest night and the shortest day. From now on until midsummer, the days get longer and the sun shines warmer (warmer might be hard to believe in Scotland, but the days do get longer!)

For some people, those with either a terminal or untreatably unbearable illness, this news can pale in comparison to the long night they may well feel they are facing. In olden times, the solstice occasioned celebration as the sun was ‘born’ to new life. Spirits were lifted. It was regarded as the Nativity of the Sun – not so far perhaps from some modern religious institutions. But believer or not, one can definitely look forward to the material change occasioned by the earth’s movement.

For some that have no prospect of a favourable medical prognosis, religious faith will be enough. Suffering has been hailed in many religions as a way of realising greater truth. For others (who may perhaps not relish such truth on offer), something more tangible is needed to bring some light and joy into their remaining time. Palliative care and the love of friends and family can do much. But it is not always everything.

If I do my job well, the majority of people who have found merciful release through the information provided by Exit are no longer here to tell the tale. I don’t get heart-warming letters from the hereafter thanking me for easing their passing. But what I do get is letters of joy of a different kind.

When people know that they have the power of action again, it often brings an immense relief, a power to life life wholeheartedly to the full again. Faced with the knowledge of how to end their own life with dignity and freedom from additional pain, many will put it off to a later time. It’s one thing to have really bad days with no known end in sight: it’s quite another to have the choice to end it all or to go on.

As we approach death, choice slips away. The knowledge that allows us to choose the time of death gives us back the ultimate choice. Living becomes a choice. An adventure even. The inevitable is still there (as it is for all of us) – but it is that little bit more under our control. “Knowing has let me live longer,” one woman wrote, “Thank you!” The statistics from countries where euthanasia is permitted show similar trends. People don’t, overall, die sooner – just better.

But what of the ‘vulnerable’ ones who end their lives after an emotional trauma and who weren’t ill. No-one can feel anything but heartache for such a person. But it has been well-demonstrated that suicide rates do not go down when one method is removed (for instance, North Sea Gas in the UK). People determined to do so will find a way – probably just a more horrible way.

Imagine you have a hypothetical unbreakable glass screen. On the other side is a person who says they are about to end their own life (for whatever reason) and that nothing you say will make any difference – and they mean it. You can’t get them out. But there are two drawers connecting through the screen. One has a painless suicide kit and one has some horrible chemicals that will cause an agonising death if used. You can only take one away – which one will you choose?

The argument that, if left with only painful methods, people will not end their lives, does not bear out. People tend to choose the least distressing method they know and that is available. What we, as society, tend to do, is restrict the painless methods. We try to frighten people into staying alive. That, to me, is cruel. Enabling people to do their true wishes, whether by discouraging a ill-thought-out suicide, or by enabling a well-thought-out and ‘rational’ one, is the mark of a moral human being. One day, perhaps our laws will catch up.

A less than glad end

exiteuthanasia — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 12:30:51 +0000

Sharlotte Hydorn, an elderly lady in California, has pleaded guilty to selling helium hoods (“Gladd Bags”) worldwide, and finally been charged with something – tax evasion – after months of speculation over whether she was breaking any laws.

The Gladd bags (short for Glorious Life And Dignified Death) had been purchased by thousands of self-determined adults around the globe as a safety precaution against an undignified end where any of us could experience pain and suffering towards the end of life. They gave people hope and courage to face an unknown future.

Only a small percentage of people buying the bags actually used them. Over recent years, a plastic hood (such as the Gladd Bag, but easy enough to make at home) combined with helium bought from a party-balloon supplier, has become the most popular way of ending one’s own life completely painlessly. As suicide methods become defunct (gas ovens, sleeping tablets) or by various changes in the law, people seek newer methods – the suicide rate is not affected by the availability or non-availability of a specific means.

Hydorn provided an option for people who, for instance, could not manage to assemble a bag with some elastic on account of arthritis in the hands. But the method became so popular among people with good reasons to take matters into their own hands – people with unbearable and unrelievable suffering – that it was also chosen as a suicide method by those experiencing emotional trauma or despair. One or tow people used helium and a Gladd Bag rather than jumping off a bridge, slitting their wrists, or other violent and unpleasant means of death.

After one such case, the FBI raided Mrs Hydorn’s home and confiscated her sewing machine and computer. Passing on details of customer orders to police around the world, the FBI initiated ‘welfare checks’ on anyone they could find who had bought a bag from Mrs Hydorn.

Various books are available to explain the method or it is easily understood from newspaper reports. Final Exit, Beyond Final Exit, Peaceful Pill, and our own Five Last Acts II all give explain how to add a piece of elastic to a plastic bag(!) and fill it with helium in case it is not obvious. Seminars and workshops give people the option to experiment with making a hood in a safe and convivial environment. Exit has conducted workshops for years where people make their own hoods, and Exit International (no connection) gives the information in talks worldwide.

Exit stays very clearly within the law. We don’t advise anyone what they should do with their life or whether to end it or not – we simply discuss these things among sensible adults. The Scottish legal construct of novus actus interveniens recognises that people don’t rush out and kill themselves simply because they can. I could tell you that crossing the road when cars are coming will probably kill you. Fortunately you are not only unlikely to do that as a result, but if you have any sense you will choose a way that is more peaceful and less harmful to their people should you ever decide, on your own, that enough is enough.

Mrs Hydorn didn’t encourage suicides – but she did perhaps fill a peaceful gap in the market. Her tax affairs seem rather spurious, but expect new laws prohibiting anything that might be used to end your life in extremis. Sticking to high cliffs and other rather gruesome methods is considered ‘kinder’ by some pro-life activists. I’m not so glad about that.

Links:
Police contact buyers of helium hoods
Hoods on Wikipedia
BBC coverage
LA Times

[Postscript 4 Dec]
Hydorn’s lawyer, Charles Goldberg, said she never deposited payments from her patrons, and that FBI agents found hundreds of uncashed checks and envelopes of cash in her home. “She was a committed person with strong beliefs that a person had a right to determine the quality of their life, particularly in the last days,” Goldberg said. Hydorn has said her interest in helping the terminally ill stemmed from the loss of her husband to colon cancer in 1977. The income she failed to report to the IRS was mostly from her retirement pension, Social Security and rent from two small apartment units, he said. Goldberg added that “the great majority of people who purchased the kit from her never used it.”
“It was an alternative in the event that their life became so unlivable that they wanted to end it,” he said.

Postscript 12 January 2012:

It was reported that court records reveal Mrs Hydorn sold approximately thirteen hundred kits to people throughout the United States and abroad.

Just 2 more UK self-deliverance events this year

exiteuthanasia — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:12:48 +0000

Knowledge is a precious thing. And knowledge of the means to a peaceful death is increasingly hard come by.

This year, there are just two more events where you can obtain vital information on ending one’s life at a time of one’s own choosing. Most people will never use that information, but the knowledge gives them great peace of mind and the courage to face an unknown future.

Exit has a full-day, hands on workshop next Saturday 26th November in Edinburgh. Participants will make their own helium hoods and ‘dress rehearse’ other major methods of rational suicide to empower themselves should the need ever arise.

In a separate event (from a separate organisation based in Australia operating under the name of called ‘Exit International’), a fast-paced seminar will run through the most accessible, safe, reliable methods in a brief 2 hour talk in Harrogate (tomorrow, November 21st).

Strangely, some people think that the knowledge of such things will make the vulnerable rush out and kill themselves. If that is the case, perhaps we should ban high bridges and cliffs and put universal barriers up to stop people walking onto any roads.

Both events are carefully run within existing law. Membership of the respective organisation is a pre-requisite.

Nurses barred from mentioning Dignitas

exiteuthanasia — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:00:36 +0000

Janet Davies, the RCN's executive director of nursing and service delivery, admits nurses need advice on how to respond to patients about Dignitas

Under new guidelines, nurses are to be told they could go to prison for talking to patients about Dignitas. It is one of the broader interpretations of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ edicts on assisted suicide. They will be warned they face prosecution if they are found to have discussed any aspect of euthanasia with a patient who goes on to commit suicide.

The new Royal College of Nursing guidelines will remind staff that it is illegal to offer information about assisted dying – including contact details for the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland – in case it is seen as ‘encouragement’.

Last month it emerged that none of the 44 people suspected of helping friends or relatives to die over the past 18 months has been prosecuted. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Kier Starmer, published revised guidelines last year which stated that assisted suicide would remain a criminal offence in England and Wales but that individual decisions on prosecution would depend on the circumstances of each case. The guidance makes clear that someone acting out of compassion, to help a terminally ill patient with a ‘clear, settled and informed wish to die’, is unlikely to face the courts.

There is, however, an extra clause in the DPP’s guidance relating to the professions. The relationship between a nurse and patient (or doctor and patient) is not the same as between two lay persons: for legally, the doctor or nurse has what is known as a ‘duty of care’ and therefore an added responsibility towards the patient. The DPP guidance says that, if the suspect was acting in his or her capacity as a medical doctor, nurse, other healthcare professional, a professional carer (whether for payment or not), or as a person in authority, such as a prison officer, and the victim was in his or her care, then this would be a public interest factor in favour of prosecution.

In the RCN Guidance, nurses are advised not to pass on details such as the address of Dignitas (which you can find on this website): “It is the RCN’s view that it is inappropriate and potentially illegal to provide contact details or website addresses for organisations that promote or provide support for people wishing to commit suicide.”

Nurses are, however, encouraged to explore making a living will (for refusal of treatment) with you. Discussing assisted suicide or euthanasia with your nurse or doctor directly can put them in a very difficult position. If discovered, they could face disciplinary action. Unfortunately, this means the patient is isolated and left to their own devices, whether considering assisted suicide or self-deliverance.

The new RCN guidance
Download the RCN Guidance in full
Previous story: http://exiteuthanasia.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/talk-about-dignitas-the-police-want-to-know/

Who is allowed to die? (peacefully)

exiteuthanasia — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:38:39 +0000

thank-you note?

The death of 59-year-old man in a Derbyshire Travelodge hotel has raised many issues – from kindness and consideration to privacy and intrusive laws. More worryingly, it raises the blurry line between rational suicide and the regrettable deaths of individuals suffering emotional trauma. In other words, self-deliverance versus suicide prevention.

The newspaper story . . .

Graham Shawcroft, 59, was found dead by the hotel cleaners. He had a plastic bag filled with helium around his head. A note he had left read: “I have killed myself by hypoxia – inhaling helium”, adding that the cash was for the person who found him as he was sorry to have caused a shock.

An inquest heard that Mr Shawcroft checked in at around 7pm on June 9th. He pre-paid the room. He asked for a wake-up call at 10am. A hotel cleaner knocked loudly on his door at 10am and 11am without reply. Staff policy prohibited her from entering the room alone, but she opened the door at noon after another cleaner arrived at work. She found Mr Shawcroft’s body and told the coroner, “I was shocked and I wanted to get out of the room.”

The father-of-two had been married for 37 years to wife Susan, who left him in April. She said: “Ever since then he said he wanted me back and he couldn’t live without me. He said this all the time.”

Mrs Shawcroft said his drinking had become heavier since his father died and binge-drinking changed his character. She had left him before but returned. He once told her he had researched suicide on the internet. He later texted her: “Last Saturday for me, kid”. This led to their youngest daughter, Lora Shawcroft, checking if he was allright. She drove past his home and saw him in the garden. She thought he had sent the message in a bid to win a reconciliation with her mother.

A bank statement revealed that he bought a helium canister online from a company selling party balloons. It was connected by a tube to the clear, draw-string bag around his head. Said Deputy North Derbyshire Coroner Nigel Anderson, “It seems he was a man who planned thoroughly. He booked the Travelodge a few weeks in advance. He purchased materials with which he could take his own life and read about it, and he left a note.” Anderson added that the use of helium was becoming more frequent, both recreationally and for self-harming, and he believed “regulations may be brought in to restrict its availability.”

Thoughtfulness towards hotel staff . . .
Self-deliverance, unlike emotionally motivated suicide, often involves a considerable amount of respect for others. But in this case it seems the individual was both irrationally motivated and maintaining some thoughtfulness for those who would find the body. He was not suffering from an unbearable and unrelievable illness. Heartache, no matter how painful, usually passes with time. He needed support. But what of his consideration for the hotel staff? The report suggests it was well-meaning and even generous gesture. Though not as educated as someone planning self-deliverance might have had. Leave a tip for hotel staff by all means, but should it really be left up to housekeeping (who might well be employing young staff) to find a person recently deceased? A better tactic might be to lock oneself in the bathroom, for instance, with a large notice along the lines of Do Not Enter / Call Management / Police. There are appropriate people to take care of such things.

Restriction of helium . . .
There is no basis that this blog knows of just now to support the coroner’s suggestion that “regulations may be brought in to restrict its availability.” However, with the ludicrous panic in the U.S.A. leading to the criminalisation of Gladd bags (an elasticated plastic bag with a piece of tubing attached) who knows what might be possible. On the one hand, such intrusive policies are both misguided and ineffective. On the other hand, it underlies Exit’s stated position that the best insurance is knowing several safe, dignified and painless methods of bringing one’s life to a close in the face of unbearable and unrelievable suffering. Such knowledge is empowering, and many of our members have said how it gives hope in the face of an uncertain future. But helium is a world mass market and a very large industry. It is much easier to go after a 91-year-old-woman selling elasticated bags than it is to control a powerful and lucrative international business. The idea that party helium could be banned seems far-fetched. But in the event that it becomes a less viable means of rational suicide, members of Exit will have other means at their disposal should the need arise.

Short-sightedness in suicide prevention . . .
Again and again, studies show that limiting the means of suicide does not affect outcomes. If someone is intent on ending their life by suicide, they will choose the most attractive way they know – if that is not available they will choose the next most attractive, and so on. This is supported not only by statistics from many different countries but by psychology of the nature of suicide. One cannot prevent suicide by taking away a specific means unless you lock the person up.

Political mileage . . .
Suicide prevention is coming on by leaps and bounds but is still a worryingly difficult area. When no ready-made solution appears, it is all to easy for those in the public eye to demonise legitimate calls for self-deliverance information and access to materials. There is a need to be seen to be “doing something” – even if that ‘something’ is ineffective and even harmful. If there is no access to peaceful and dignified methods of suicide, people in both groups – terminally ill and suicidally depressed – will simply choose to take their own lives by more grisly and distressing means.

Police force entry to ‘check’ purchaser of suicide kit ok

exiteuthanasia — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 03:35:27 +0000

Some U.S. police responded immediately an FBI message that sounded urgent. A man had been seen carrying a bag into his house and was known to have purchased a ‘helium hood’ plastic bag kit.

Officers knocked on the man’s front door, but received no response. Concerned someone might be ‘needing’ immediate help, officers kicked in the front door. They soon learned that not only was he not home – he was out working as a newspaper reporter and not at all suicidal. He said he had purchased the Gladd Bag kit last February. He didn’t buy the kit for personal reasons. He mailed a check to The Gladd Group in order to get a suicide kit for another reporter, who at the time was researching the sale of the suicide kits for a story.

The FBI’s investigation involving The Gladd Group is ongoing. Since the May raid on the home of the company’s owner, 91-year-old Sharlotte Hydorn, the FBI has asked local law enforcement agencies throughout the country to carry out ‘welfare checks’ on people whose names are apparently listed on client lists gleaned from Hydorn’s computers.

The FBI and U.S. Postal Inspection Service launched a criminal investigation, executing a search warrant at Hydorn’s home that said she was under investigation for alleged conspiracy, fraud, tax evasion and the sale of an “adulterated or misbranded medical device.”

No charges are known to have been filed against her.

A British hero

exiteuthanasia — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 21:16:37 +0000

For those lucky enough to be able to afford the thousands of pounds required for an assisted suicide at Dignitas, Switzerland, there remains one extra hurdle that is sometimes difficult to surmount: a travelling companion who will accompany you and look after the day-to-day necessities. Many elderly folk have seen their nearest and dearest pre-decease them. Additionally, someone accompanying you to Dignitas is technically guilty of assisting a suicide. Enter Dr Michael Irwin.

Irwin, a retired GP, is also a former medical director of the United Nations. He has also worked for UNICEF and the World Bank and has never been shy to expose what he saw as wrongs, even among those in high places. It will not be the first time he will be interviewed by police over his part in someone’s suicide. He has openly admitted his help in a number of deaths, but always puts his patients before the limelight – something this Blog finds rare in doctors, especially ones wanting to make a name for themselves in the ‘movement.’

Irwin is an unadulterated hero. He has used his position wisely and skilfully. He has so far managed to stay just enough within the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines to avoid a prison sentence or even a successful prosecution. This is due in part to it being clear that his acts have been compassionate and unmotivated by self-interest.

He now plans to help a 91-year-old woman from Eastbourne, who suffers from severe arthritis, to travel to Dignitas even though she is not terminally ill.

Dr Michael Irwin, from Cranleigh, in Surrey, said he would help the 91-year-old who suffers from severe arthritis to travel to the Dignitas facility. He refuses to name the woman. “It’s her right to be anonymous,” he says. A spokeswoman for Sussex Police said officers would contact Dr Irwin. He was arrested for taking Raymond Cutkelvin, of London, to die at the
facility, but in June 2011 Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer decided not to prosecute saying it would not be in the public interest.

A spokeswoman for Sussex Police said: “We will be getting in touch with Dr Irwin in relation to the report that he may be taking a woman abroad to be helped to die.” A spokesman for East Sussex County Council said, “There could be other ways of resolving this.”

Such as what?

In a separate story, The Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer admitted that no
prosecutions have been brought for assisted suicide since new CPS guidelines were issued 18 months ago. But he said after personally overseeing all the unique cases since then, none have involved an individual who was “motivated by the prospect of gaining from the victim’s death. . . . Any inference that the Crown Prosecution Service has implemented a blanket policy of simply not prosecuting for this offence would be wrong.

“Each case is carefully considered on its own facts and merits. Prosecutors must decide the importance of each public interest factor in the circumstances of each case and go on to make an overall assessment. Assisting or encouraging suicide remains a criminal offence, and there must always be a thorough investigation into any suspected cases.”

Dr Peter Saunders, campaign director of the Care Not Killing alliance, yesterday said there was a “very real danger” that prosecutors would in effect create laws which ran “contrary to the will of Parliament”. He went on, “The director of public prosecutions (DPP) has a duty to uphold the will of parliament but with no prosecutions resulting from the last 44 cases
he appears to be interpreting his own prosecution guidance very liberally indeed.”

The main cause of confusion seems to be how the word ‘assisting’ is interpreted. Clearly there is a very big difference between the sort of direct act that most people would call assisting a suicide – such as handing someone the pills and watching them die – and just getting on a plane to Switzerland with them. Although both are technically the same offence in law, there is the question of degree – one that is maybe lost on some critics.