Thursday, October 20, 2016

Assisted-suicide law prompts insurance company to deny coverage to terminally ill California woman

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Stephanie Packer
The Washington Times reported that the California Assisted-suicide law prompted an insurance company to deny coverage to a terminally ill California woman.

Bradford Richardson, from the Washington Times reported that Stephanie Packer, a wife and mother of four who was diagnosed with a terminal form of scleroderma, said that her insurance company initially indicated it would pay for her to switch to a different chemotherapy drug based on the recommendation of her doctors but shortly after the California assisted suicide law went into effect, her insurance company denied her treatment.
Richardson reported Packer as saying:
“And when the law was passed, it was a week later I received a letter in the mail saying they were going to deny coverage for the chemotherapy that we were asking for,” 
She said she called her insurance company to find out why her coverage had been denied. On the call, she also asked whether suicide pills were covered under her plan. 
“And she says, ‘Yes, we do provide that to our patients, and you would only have to pay $1.20 for the medication,’”Mrs. Packer said.
Stephanie Packer believes that legalizing assisted suicide creates an incentive for insurance companies to deny terminally ill people coverage. Packer stated:
“As soon as this law was passed — and you see it everywhere, when these laws are passed — patients fighting for a longer life end up getting denied treatment, because this will always be the cheapest option,” 
The attitude also changed in her support group:
After the right-to-die movement began garnering national attention, Mrs. Packer said she noticed a change in tone at her support groups for terminally ill patients. While the meetings were formerly positive and encouraging, she said the specter of suicide now hangs above them like a dark cloud. 
“And people, once they became depressed, it became negative, and it started consuming people,” she said in the video. “And then they said, ‘You know what? I wish I could just end it.’ “
Stephanie Parker is not the first person to be denied chemotherapy but offered assisted suicide. Several years ago Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup, in Oregon, were denied medical treatment but offered assisted suicide.

Belgium: Euthanizing the Mentally Ill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Washington Post published an article on October 19 by Charles Lane examining the recent report from Belgium's Federal Commission on the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia that was presented in the Belgian parliament on October 7, 2016. Lane, in his article, focuses on the data related to euthanasia for psychiatric reasons. Lane reports in his article:
In the 2014-2015 period, the report says, 124 of the 3,950 euthanasia cases in Belgium involved persons diagnosed with a “mental and behavioral disorder,” four more than in the previous two years. Tiny Belgium’s population is 11.4 million; 124 euthanasias over two years there is the equivalent of about 3,500 in the United States. 
The figure represents 3.1 percent of all 2014-2015 euthanasia cases — and a remarkable 20.8 percent of the (also remarkable) 594 non-terminal patients to whom Belgian doctors administered lethal injections in that period.
Order the Euthanasia Deception documentary, featuring Belgian people with personal experience with euthanasia and assisted suicide. One of the interviews concerns a man whose depressed mother died by euthanasia.
Lane points out that the Belgian euthanasia is now being criticized:
Recent newspaper articles and documentaries focused on cases in which psychiatrists euthanized or offered to euthanize people with mental illnesses, some still in their 20s or 30s, under dubious circumstances. 
In December, 65 Belgian mental-health professionals, ethicists and physicians published a call to ban euthanasia of the mentally ill. 
Seemingly stung by these criticisms, the commission spends two of its report’s pages defending the system, explaining that all is well and that no one is being euthanized except in strict accordance with the law.

Wim Distelmans, who is the chair of the Belgian Federal Commission on the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia defends the Belgian law, but Distelmans is also the doctor who operates a euthanasia clinic that is responsible for a large percentage of the euthanasia deaths for psychiatric reasons. Lane writes:
In particular, the regulatory panel — chaired by Wim Distelmans, a leading proponent of euthanasia who conducts the procedure himself — defends the one-month waiting period required between the time a mentally ill or otherwise cognitively impaired person puts his or her signature on a written request for death, and the time it may be carried out. 
Objections that this is too little time are “unfounded,” the report asserts, because “the formation of the true will of the patient is a long process that takes several months, sometimes years,” then culminates in the written request. In any case, the waiting time is often longer in practice.
Lane counters Distelmans defense of psychiatric euthanasia by quoting from opponents of the practise:
“We see that some who were first declared incurable, eventually abandon euthanasia because new prospects showed up. In a paradoxical way, this proves that the disease can not be called incurable.”
Lane responds by publishing the data concerning euthanasia for psychiatric reasons:
This, regarding a Belgian medical system that over the past two years administered lethal injections upon the request of five non-terminally ill people with schizophrenia, five with autism, eight with bipolar disorder and 29 with dementia — an increasingly common condition in the aging Western world — as well as 39 with depression, according to the report.
As a father of a adult autistic son, I find this data very disturbing. 

Lane continues by stating that the American Psychiatric Association a declaration that it is unethical for any psychiatrist to participate in the euthanasia of people who are not terminally ill and the World Psychiatric Association, which has a position discouraging participation in euthanasia of people who are not terminally ill, will revisit the issue in 2017.

Sadly, the new Canadian euthanasia law permits euthanasia for people who are living with physical or psychological suffering.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

South Australia MP floats new euthanasia bill because old one expected to fail.

This article was published on the HOPE Australia website on October 19, 2016.

Paul Russell is the director of
HOPE Australia
y Paul Russell

Last night the mover of the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 2016, Steph Key gave a rather cryptic comment to the South Australian media about the possible adoption of their 'plan b'.

It is not a stretch to observe that one only goes to a 'plan b' if 'plan a' - the existing bill, is not going to pass muster.

This was a clear admission from Steph Key that she and her team were not confident that her bill would pass at the Second Reading vote scheduled for this Thursday the 20th of October.

So what does 'plan b' look like?

Readers will recall that, after the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 2016 had been in the chamber for something like eight months, Steph Key recently tabled a set of her own amendments to her own bill that she had hoped would convince MPs who were rightly concerned about the Belgian style model in the current bill, to allow the bill to pass on Thursday so that these amendments could be discussed and the bill modified.

This 'eleventh hour' amendment schedule (less that a week from the scheduled debate) as the Australian Medical Association observed, ran to thirteen pages - only a few pages short of the length of the bill itself. Parliamentarians and the public will have had little time to scrutinise the changes, which can only have added to the cynicism amongst Key's parliamentary colleagues.

Key clearly expected her colleagues to pass a very dangerous bill on the possibility that the amendments she foreshadowed would be adopted during the debate on clauses that would have followed. That is never certain. This is reckless and MPs clearly agreed in the majority.

We now understand that a new bill will be introduced today that is essentially the old bill with the flagged amendments incorporated.

I can understand that with everything invested in what must be said was a comprehensive campaign in support of the bill, that to lose on Thursday was not something that Key and her allies wanted to face. Regardless, much of that impetus is now lost as the debate begins again. Key's colleague Duncan McFetridge MP announced the tabling of this new bill in his name. He said that he hoped to have the matter 'approved in about a month'. The Advertiser story repeated the false claim that, 'A request for voluntary euthanasia would not be granted if there was another medical treatment or palliative care option that would relieve the person’s suffering.'

In normal circumstances, this 'new' bill would progress at a snails pace like all private member's bills. That would normally mean that the debate in earnest would probably not occur until the second half of 2017 - when MPs are beginning to focus on the March 2018 election. But these are not necessarily normal times and one can bet that Steph Key will be pressuring the Premier for special treatment. Originally the Premier had signaled that he wanted the issue out of the way by Christmas. It remains to be seen if that commitment extends to this new bill.

One hopes that MPs will remain cynical that Steph Key and her cohort have essentially used the parliament as something of a private play thing. Many MPs will have private members business of their own that they would also dearly love to progress.

While the old bill would have made the state the 'Belgium of the South', the new bill is closer to the Oregon model but with some curious additions. Like its predecessor, it will fail to protect people. Only a total ban on euthanasia & assisted suicide can achieve that.

Euthanasia begets more euthanasia.

This article was published by OneNewsNow on October 18, 2016

Alex Schadenberg
According to an expert on the issue, once euthanasia is legalized it becomes a natural trend – and he cites astonishing numbers from a European country to support his argument.

The latest figures from Switzerland (from 2014) show assisted suicide deaths are up 26 percent from 2013 – and more than 2.5 times as many as five years previously. The Swiss suicide clinic "The Exit" reported a 34-percent increase in business for 2015, while deaths from the other Swiss suicide clinics remain unknown.

"This is a worldwide phenomenon. Every time you legalize euthanasia, the numbers only go up every year," says Alex Schadenberg with the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, "because there's more and more reasons why people now say I want to die – and there's more and more people willing to do it for more and more conditions. That's what we see in the Netherlands, and that's what we're seeing in Switzerland."
OneNewsNow reported earlier this year on the steady rise in doctor-assisted suicide in the Netherlands over the past five years.

Recent examples in Switzerland include a 62-year-old magistrate killed, but whose autopsy revealed an incorrect diagnosis; and an 85-year-old woman who was euthanized because she didn't like her appearance.

Schadenberg explains that for many individuals, euthanasia is becoming "the answer" for loneliness and depression – resulting in a "ridiculous situation."

"... When you've got a culture that kills its most vulnerable who are lonely or going through a time in their life when they really need others ... this is what it's coming down to," he laments. "Even in Oregon and Washington state they can say what they want, but their numbers have gone up every year in the last few years."
Links to more information on this topic:

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Mentally Ill OK'd for Assisted Suicide in California hospitals.

This article was written by Wesley J Smith and published in the National Review on October 18, 2016

Wesley Smith
By Wesley Smith

California has promulgated a regulation to assure that the mentally ill who have been ordered hospitalized in California have access to assisted suicide if they are dying and deemed able to make medical decisions. From 9 California Code of Regulations § 4601 (my emphases): 
(a) A terminally ill patient, as defined by the End of Life Option Act, may petition the superior court for access to participate in activities under the End of Life Option Act by requesting release from the custody of the Department of State Hospitals from the court. If the court orders release from the custody of the Department of State Hospitals, the Department of State Hospitals shall release the patient to the ordered entity or person. 
People can be involuntarily hospitalized for psychiatric reasons in CA if they are found by a court, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be a danger to themselves or others. 

Thus, if a suicidal patient requests to be released to commit suicide but isn’t terminally ill, he will be refused if he is still considered a mortal danger to himself. But if the same patient has terminal cancer, he must be released in order to commit suicide

That’s not only nuts, but the state is abandoning the terminally ill with mental illnesses to their darkest impulses. 

And what if a court decides the patient is, say, too dangerous to be let out? The state must facilitate the suicide by either transporting the mentally ill patient to a death locale or see the deed done at the state facility
If a court orders that the patient meets the qualifications under the End of Life Option Act, and that the Department of State Hospitals shall facilitate the patient’s access to participate in activities under the End of Life Option Act, the Department of State Hospitals will facilitate the patient’s access to an off-site facility that allows the patient the ability to participate in activities under the End of Life Option Act…. 
1) If the court orders that the patient meets the qualifications under the End of Life Option Act, and the Department of State Hospitals is unable to find an off-site facility for the patient to participate in activities under the End of Life Option Act, the Department of State Hospitals will facilitate the patient’s ability to participate in activities under the End of Life Option Act on-site. 
Think about this. There will be patients forcibly hospitalized in these institutions because they are suicidal, who will know that other patients are being assisted in suicide. The mind just boggles! 

But it’s not unexpected. In Oregon, Michael Freeland was lethally prescribed (two years before dying naturally). Before getting around to killing himself, he became psychotic and was forcibly hospitalized. His psychiatrist made sure his guns were taken but also that the poison prescription “remained safely at home,” even though he would “experience periods of delirium,” the shrink wrote in Freeland’s medical records. 

Abuses of assisted suicide in Oregon, Wesley? What abuses? 

To recap: My state, which may soon do away with the death penalty, specifically will require government participation and facilitation of the suicides of mentally ill people if they have been diagnosed with a terminal illness. 

This so-called “death with dignity” movement is driving us out of our collective minds.

Colorado Springs Gazette: No to Proposition 106, assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Colorado Springs Gazette is urging Colorado citizens to vote no on the assisted suicide Proposition 106. In its recent summary of Gazette endorsements, the paper stated:
Out-of-state billionaire George Soros wants to impose this irresponsible law on Colorado as another of his infamous arms-length social experiments. It is a badly written law that will come with unthinkable consequences. Colorado's suicide rate is already too high and rising, especially among teens. This sends the wrong message. But it's worse than that. The law could facilitate impatient heirs in coercing the early deaths of relatives, friends and business partners. It shields from accountability anyone who witnesses a suicide. A similar law in Oregon has greedy insurance companies encouraging suicides to save the costs of treatments and cures. We don't need more suicide, much less a law that allows for almost anything-goes assisted suicide.

Monday, October 17, 2016

Disability rights activists say no to euthanasia bill.

This article was published on the HOPE Australia website on October 17, 2016.

Lives Worth Living and Not Dead Yet Australia have joined together to let the South Australian Parliament know that they strongly oppose the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 2016 in its current and its proposed (amended) form.

Writing to the parliament this week, Lives Worth Living made some keen observations:

  • We note that there have been significant amendments to the Bill which attempt to remove some issues but there are still considerable areas of concern to us.
  • This is now to some extent a new Bill and this warrants consultation. Lack of consultation with the disability community on euthanasia is an ongoing concern.
  • The Bill does not name the disabilities or conditions covered or exclude any disabilities, illnesses or chronic conditions instead focusing on how the condition is experienced and perceived.
  • This Bill does not define a terminal medical condition and imagines that you can make a clear distinction between a person with a medical condition and a person “suffering from a disability”. Most disabilities shorten the lifespan and there is no clearly defined boundary between a shortened life span and a terminal illness.
  • The attempt to excise disability in section 10 is welcome but is actually ineffectual and this is apparent in the way it is framed i.e, “a person is not an eligible person merely because the person is … suffering from a disability (however described).
  • All people with disability have medical conditions that cause a disability, meaning that disability is in scope at the outset. The disability arising from a condition is caused by a lack of access to rights, access, treatments and disability. The Bill misunderstands this on a basic level.
LWL canvasses an alternative:
We would prefer that the South Australian Parliament addressed secondary comorbidity, barriers and lack of supports experienced by people with a disability rather than provide a mechanism for suicide because of them. Instead of safeguards, we need to be talking about preconditions. Like the precondition that half of us no longer live in poverty, have good access to medical treatment and palliative care, that we have the care and support to live a good life.
And suicide prevention rather than enabling:
LWL is concerned that the Bill creates a double standard in the treatment and interventions around ending one’s life based on disability. Euthanasia is assisted suicide and as we read it the Bill it fails to mandate suicide prevention and other counselling which may identify other issues in people’s lives which weigh in their decisions. Where counselling is addressed it is an option for the primary practitioner, not mandated. For any other group in the community – young people, LGBTIQ people, indigenous people – we do everything we can to avert suicide. Where are the suicide interventions for people with disability?
The letter goes on to outline some of the difficulties people with a disability encounter when engaging with the medical profession. Difficulties that create or exacerbate concerns about legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide.
We are not satisfied with decision making and safeguards by medical practitioner around euthanasia as outlined in Section 11.
  • Many people with long term disabilities have endured a string of negative interactions with medical practitioners who underestimate the life chances, value and worth of people with disability; 

  • This occurs for a reason. Disability advocates operate from a social model of disability which assumes that barriers in the community should be addressed, whereas the medical model assumes we are the problem. 

  • Medical interventions are different from disability supports and in some cases people require advocacy against medical interventions or decisions. Doctors with the best of intentions are often unaware of disability supports, interventions and advocacy that make a person’s life liveable rather than just trying to cure a person’s underlying disease; and crucially 

  • The Bill does not even mention disability supports or advocacy.
LWL closes by calling on the parliament to reject the bill:
LWL believes that the Bill as it stands raises serious risks for people with disability and we hope it is defeated in the Parliament of South Australia. We are also releasing this letter publicly to contribute to community debate.
The release of the LWL letter is timely, given that disability activists from across Australia will be fronting the media and providing a briefing for parliamentarians this week ahead of the debate on the 20th of October.

The event was bolstered by a video presentation from UK actress, disability activist, comedian and braodcaster, Liz Carr directed at all members of parliaments in Australia.

Liz Carr puts the disability argument clearly in her 8 minute video which has also been released to the Australian media (see video at the top of the page).

You can read the Lives Worth Living letter in full HERE.

Dr Ramona Coelho: ‘I’m just trying to live by my conscience’

This article was published by the Ottawa Citizen on October 8, 2016.

By Joanne Laucius

Dr. Ramona Coelho
This spring, a patient told Dr. Ramona Coelho she was thinking about physician-assisted death.

Coelho gently probed to find out what was at the heart of the woman’s fear, anxiety and depression. The patient felt her life was diminished and no longer meaningful. Coelho says she steered the patient away from assisted death to finding ways to make every day seem worthwhile.

“My patients’ death wishes go away when their issues are dealt with,” says Coelho, who has practised medicine since 2007 and did palliative-care work in Montreal before moving to London, Ont., in 2012. She believes time, careful listening, affection and respect are key to a good relationship with patients.

“We have a rushed, overworked health-care system. Patients feel neglected. It can create an overwhelming anxiety. What is driving a lot of death wishes is anxiety. It’s not overwhelming pain.”

Coelho was interested in social justice long before she went to medical school. And yet she is surprised to be considered a “conscientious objector” to assisted death.

“I’m just trying to live by my conscience and with integrity,” she says.

A College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario policy acknowledges that physicians who object to providing medical assistance in dying for reasons of conscience or religion are not required to provide that assistance or assess whether a patient is eligible. However, these conscientious objectors must provide “an effective referral” to a patient in a timely manner. That means a referral made in good faith, to a non-objecting, available and accessible physician, nurse practitioner or agency.

This “active” referral is the sticking point for physicians like Coelho, who believe the province should set up a self-referral phone line for patients and not require physicians to act against their conscience.

“Patients want to know, ‘What would you do if you were me?’ So why would I offer them something if I feel it would be bad for them?” she says.

If a patient insisted on seeking access to assisting dying, Coelho says, she would respectfully ask that patient to find other means.

“They could still see me for emotional support. I truly have affection for people I disagree with. I wouldn’t terminate the relationship. The important thing is that we don’t abandon a patient. But you don’t have to do something that’s against your conscience.”

Coelho doesn’t want to bring religion into it. Assisted death has been a polarizing issue, and neither side is open to debate. Talking about religion creates a bias about the person making an argument, she says.

“If I brought religion into it, people would try to put me in a box and explain me away.”

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has had no discipline cases for access to medically assisted dying, a spokeswoman says.

“In the event that we receive a complaint from the public relating to the provision of medical assistance in dying, we will investigate just as we would when a concern is raised about any other area of medical practice.”

Coelho recognizes speaking to a reporter about referring patients puts her viewpoint “out there.” But at the end of the day, a patient is free to see another doctor, she says.

“I respect free will. I can’t control people. I’m passively objecting. This law stands, unfortunately. But I shouldn’t be forced to do it. There’s a thousand other medical acts I can do. And I do them well.”

Friday, October 14, 2016

Euthanizing Children

This article was written by Wesley Smith and published by First Things on October 14, 2016

Wesley Smith
By Wesley Smith

The death of a terminally ill seventeen-year-old boy made headlines recently, as Belgium’s first case of child euthanasia. I don’t understand the sudden fuss. The Netherlands has long allowed minors to request and receive euthanasia: Dutch children down to age sixteen can receive euthanasia without their parents’ consent, and children can be killed by doctors with parental consent starting at age twelve.

Perhaps Belgium’s euthanasia law has received this recent media attention because it has no age limits, instead requiring that a minor demonstrate a capacity to make autonomous decisions before receiving assisted suicide.

Think about this: Children who can’t enter into legal contracts, get tattooed, or be licensed to drive a car may request—and receive—death.

The healthcare system doesn’t dole out death only to teens and preteens. In the Netherlands, doctors commit infanticide against babies born with serious disabilities or terminal illnesses with impunity, even though the practice remains technically illegal. Indeed, doctors at the Groningen University Medical Center felt so safe committing infanticide that they published the Groningen Protocol, a bureaucratic checklist to help determine whether a baby is killable.

The protocol permits doctors to administer lethal injections to infants under three scenarios:
  1. the baby has no chance of survival (a circumstance that is sometimes misdiagnosed);
  2. the baby “may survive after a period of intensive treatment but expectations for their future are very grim”;
  3. the baby does “not depend on technology for physiologic stability” but has “suffering [that] is severe, sustained, and cannot be alleviated.”
This means that doctors are lethally injecting not only babies who are dying, but also babies with serious disabilities who do not need intensive care—those who are living what is sometimes called an “unlivable life” by Dutch infanticide apologists. The Groningen Protocol was published without criticism in the New England Journal of Medicine.

But babies don’t have decisional capacity. Thus, in order to maintain the pretense that euthanasia is about “choice,” the protocol requires parental consent. That, however, opens the door to all kinds of horrors. One can easily envision parents deciding that they would be better off without a disabled child for whom they would have to provide ongoing care. After all, such decisions are ubiquitous involving later-term abortions of fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome and other disabilities. Moreover, according to a study published in The Lancet in 1997—admittedly, before the protocol was crafted—some 21 percent of babies killed by doctors responding to the authors’ questionnaires had been euthanized without parental consent.

I guess we should be pleased that the euthanasia death of a seventeen-year-old remains at least mildly controversial. But it is clear that the culture of death, if allowed to progress further, will eventually consider such deaths routine. That is why I was completely unsurprised that Princeton University’s Peter Singer, who believes it should be acceptable kill babies because (in his view) they are not “persons,” came to the Belgian law’s defense.

Singer assures us that the law “effectively excludes very small children.” But why would the age of the euthanized be of any significance to Singer, given that he supports not only infanticide but also the non-voluntary euthanasia of adults who have lost decisional capacity? Moreover, Singer believesthat children do not attain “full moral status” until “after two years” of age—implying they too could be killed, although he is too politically savvy to support such a public policy.

Singer also grapples—poorly—with the fact that children he thinks should be allowed to choose to die can’t make other adult decisions:
Age limits are always to some extent arbitrary. Chronological age and mental age can diverge. For some activities for which a mental age limit may be relevant, the number of people engaging in the activity is very large: voting, obtaining a driving license, and having sex, for example. But it would be very costly to scrutinize whether every person interested in those activities has the capacity to understand what is involved in voting, driving responsibly, or giving informed consent to sex. That is why we rely on chronological age as a rough indication of the relevant mental capacity.

This is not true of minors requesting euthanasia. If the number of those who meet the requirements of the law is so small that Belgium has had only one case over the past two years, it is not difficult to carry out a thorough examination of these patients’ capacities to make such a request.
Please. There are plenty of minors who could be shown in court to have the decision-making capacity that allows Belgian youngsters to receive death, and yet who are still considered rape victims when they have consensual sex with an adult. The issue isn’t the cost or difficulty of measuring maturity, but the defining need to protect all minors from harmful choices.

Here’s the bottom line. Euthanasia consciousness isn’t really about “choice.” Nor is it about terminal illness. Rather, euthanasia proponents see killing and suicide as acceptable answers to human suffering and acceptable means of reducing costs of care. Publicizing the euthanasia of a seventeen-year-old marks the beginning of a campaign to normalize putting dying (and eventually disabled) children to sleep.

Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism and a consultant to the Patients Rights Council. His new book Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine was just published by Encounter Books.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

The Netherlands set to expand assisted death again, now to people who are not sick or dying.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Dutch government has decided to expand their euthanasia law to include people who are not physically or psychologically sick but who believe that their "life is completed." NL Times reporter, Janene Pieters wrote:
The Dutch government wants to adjust the Euthanasia Act so that people who aren’t sick, but feel that their life is completed, can end their lives with assisted suicide. This will only be allowed under “strict and rigorous criteria”, the government wrote to parliament. The majority of parliamentarians support the plan. 
Coalition parties VVD and PvdA and opposition party support the proposal to change the law. That gives the proposal a majority vote in Parliament, with 88 out of 150 parliamentarians in favor. In the Senate the three parties only represent 33 out of 75 senators, however. With the Christian parties set 100 percent against the proposal, this means that the PVV, SP or a collection of smaller parties will also have to support this change in the euthanasia law for it to be implemented.
The Dutch government is going against the recommendations of their parliamentary committee. The NL Times reported:
The committee, chaired by Paul Schnabel, concluded that nothing has to be changed about the Euthanasia Act. The current law provides enough space for “most” people to qualify for euthanasia if they consider their life completed, according to the committee. The committee was also against the introduction of a so-called “suicide pill” as there is to great a risk of it falling into the wrong hands.
The report in the increased my concerns. It stated:
In their briefing, the ministers say that ‘elderly’ people with a consistent and well-considered wish to die – whether ill or not – should be able to take a drug to end their lives. Family members would not be allowed to administer the drug. 
The practice would not be considered euthanasia, in which the patient is said to be suffering unbearably, and in which doctors have an active role.
The expansion of euthanasia in the Netherlands has been happening for many years.

Based on the 2015 Dutch government statistics, the number of euthanasia deaths increased by 289% since 2006 with 5561 reported euthanasia deaths. Among those deaths there were 109 people who died by euthanasia based on dementia, up from 81 in 2014 and 56 people died by euthanasia based on psychiatric reasons in 2015, up from 41 in 2014.

Those who believe that euthanasia can be controlled, then this news should cause them to think again. Once a nation permits doctors, or others, to kill their people by lethal injection, then that nation has opened the door to an ever expanding option to kill. Woe to Canada who recently approved medical killing.