“Let’s not mince words: I killed people who wanted to die.”

Canadian euthanasia activist posthumously discloses serial murders

Sean Murphy*

John Hofsess, a long-time assisted suicide/euthanasia activist, committed suicide on 29 February, 2016 at a facility in Basel, Switzerland run by the Eternal Spirit Foundation.  He was accompanied by Madeline Weld (an editor of Humanist Perspectives) and four others, two of whom were filmmakers doing a documentary about his death.

"Let's not mince words: I killed people who wanted to die."Four days later, Toronto Life published Weld’s account of his death and his posthumous confession to having murdered at least four people between 1999 and 2001, including noted Canadian poet Al Purdy, and either murdered or assisted with the suicide of four others.  He abandoned the practice because it became too risky after police charged his accomplice, Evelyn Martens, with two counts of assisted suicide in 2002 with respect to the deaths of two women;  Hofsess states that he knew nothing them.  Martens was acquitted in a jury trial two years later and died in 2011.

Hofsess’ description of the method he employed in four of the cases (including Purdy’s) makes clear his clients did not kill themselves with his assistance; rather, he killed them with their consent.  Consent to being killed was not a defence to a charge of murder at the time; planned and deliberate homicide, even with consent, was first degree murder.  Consistent with this, he was advised by two lawyers that he could expect to be charged with “crimes ranging from assisted suicide to first-degree murder” if he published his account.

In Carter v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada decided to strike down the absolute prohibition of using consent as a defence to a charge of murder.  Under the terms of the ruling, a physician who kills a patient in the circumstances defined by the Court can use the patient’s consent as a defence to a charge of murder; in that case the killing is non-culpable homicide.  It remains first degree murder even under the terms of the Carter ruling if the client or patient is killed by a layman like Hofsess, even if the homicide otherwise conforms to the requirements of the law.

Hofsess was forthright in describing what he did.

“Let’s not mince words,” he wrote.  “I killed people who wanted to die.”

This is precisely what troubles health care workers who do not want to provide or to become accomplices to physician administered euthanasia or physician assisted suicide.  They do not want to kill people or help them commit suicide, even people who want to die.

 

 

 

 

Canada’s Catholic hospitals in a tough spot on assisted death

Globe and Mail

Sean Fine

It started with a Supreme Court ruling that government could not criminalize doctor-assisted death. Now, a parliamentary committee is recommending that all publicly funded health-care institutions provide the service, and major Catholic hospitals such as St. Paul’s in Vancouver and St. Joseph’s in Hamilton are drawing a line in the sand against it.

Canada is being thrust into its biggest religious-freedom debate since Quebec’s proposed charter of values three years ago would have banned the wearing of turbans, kippahs and hijabs by government employees.

Is the committee recommending one kind of unconstitutional act replace another? Or are religious institutions failing to live up to their obligations in the public sphere?

At the heart of the committee’s recommendations was a kind of contradiction: Doctors should have the freedom of conscience not to have to provide assisted death, the committee said. But institutions should not have the same freedom of conscience. . . [Full Text]

 

Doctors should be named in patient’s right-to-die request: media lawyer

The Globe and Mail

Sean Fine

Lawyers for an 80-year-old man with aggressive lymphoma asked a Toronto judge on Thursday for privacy for him, his family and his doctors as he seeks a court’s permission for an assisted death. But a media lawyer argued it may be in the public interest to know the names of the doctors, and said he would like to see evidence that would explain why their identities should remain private.

“There are going to be other applications like this – it may be relevant to the public and the court to hear whether these are always the same doctors … rubber-stamp types,” lawyer Peter Jacobsen, representing The Globe and Mail, Postmedia, the CBC and CTV, told Justice Thomas McEwen of the Ontario Superior Court. “And for those who wish to come forward in the future, they may wish to know who these doctors are.”

Andrew Faith, a lawyer for the man with lymphoma, replied that putting the doctors’ names “on the front page of the newspaper” would make it more difficult for other patients, and perhaps even his own client, to find a doctor willing to provide this medical service. . . [Full Text]

 

Right-to-die hits another snag with nurses

Nursing regulator in B.C. says it’s not yet clear that court ruling allowing assisted death protects participating nurses

Vancouver Sun

Jeff Lee

A B.C. doctor leading the efforts to provide physician-assisted dying says she’s being thwarted in her efforts to recruit nurses to help administer intravenous drugs.

On Monday Dr. Ellen Wiebe, the medical director of the Willow Women’s Centre in Vancouver, assisted a Calgary woman with Lou Gehrig’s Disease, also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in dying after an Alberta court issued an exemption allowing the assistance.

Wiebe said on Thursday that she has a case going to B.C. Supreme Court next week in which a patient has chosen to die at home using intravenous medications. But she said the College of Registered Nurses of British Columbia “does not support this.” . . . [Full text]

 

I support assisted suicide, but what we’re proposing goes too far

National Post

John Moore

I have spent years campaigning for the right of doctor assisted death. Now Canada is about to establish that right and I find myself arguing against the very thing I asked for. This is not the assisted death I was looking for.

In debates on TV and radio I was always pitted against people I regarded as tedious scolds. They have moral and religious objections to anything but a natural death and they’re presumptuous enough to think all of us should hew to their personal convictions. They have a habit of grossly exaggerating or misrepresenting stories from jurisdictions where there are frameworks for the state helping people to die. They pretend that fully functioning people, the disabled and unwanted elders are being dispatched not only with glee but often against their will. These arguments were never hard to refute.

But now I find myself somewhat uncomfortably sharing the same side of the table with some of these people, even if their “I told you sos” don’t quite add up. . . [Full Text]