Grafeneck T-4 euthanasia complex killed more than 10,000 people

Grafeneck gate

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I will be speaking at a conference in Germany on Saturday, so I decided to go to Germany for few days to visit some of the T-4 euthanasia sites. I decided to visit the euthanasia memorial at the Grafeneck psychiatric hospital because it was the first of the T-4 euthanasia death sites. It is believed that 10,654 people were gassed to death at Grafeneck. I have been reading more about the T-4 euthanasia program because history is repeating itself.

In September 2023, while in Berlin Germany to speak at a conference, I went to the Euthanasia Memorial located at Tiergartenstraße 4, which was the headquarters of the T-4 euthanasia program that killed 70,000 people, beginning in Grafeneck in January 1940 (Article).

I have reproduced the information from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum about Grafeneck:

Grafeneck Castle (Link to information).

Grafeneck Castle (Schloss Grafeneck) was built near the city of Tübingen in southwestern Germany around 1560. It was originally a hunting lodge for the dukes of Württemberg. Later modernized, the complex was privatized in 1904. In 1928, it came into the possession of the Samaritan Foundation (Samariterstiftung), a charitable arm of the German Lutheran Church. The foundation established a care facility for male patients with disabilities at Grafeneck in 1929.

Establishing the Killing Center at Grafeneck

When T4 operatives began to identify sites to serve as killing centers for the adult euthanasia program, they first chose the Grafeneck complex. The isolated location of the castle in the hills of the Swabian Alb appealed to their need for secrecy. The surrounding forest shielded the site from public view and only two entrances led to the facility. On October 6, 1939, high ranking T4 officials confiscated Grafeneck “for the purposes of the Reich.” Soon thereafter, caretakers at Grafeneck, as well as the facility’s 110 male patients, were removed from the complex.

By late October, T4 operatives arrived to convert the care facility into a killing center. On the castle grounds they erected a wooden barracks with beds. A construction team transformed the old coach house behind the castle into a makeshift gas chamber.

The castle itself housed the facility’s administrative offices. It also included a special registry office which issued the victims’ death certificates without attracting the attention of local officials. The death certificates were issued with falsified causes and dates of death.

Makeshift gas chamber

In October 1939, the Nazis transformed Grafeneck Castle from a care facility into the first centralized killing center within Aktion T4 (the Nazi Euthanasia Program). The goal of this program was to kill patients with mental and physical disabilities living in institutional settings. In the Nazi view, the T4 program was meant to cleanse the “Aryan” race of people considered both genetically defective and a financial burden to society. By killing patients who had disabilities in Germany, the Nazis aimed to restore the racial "integrity" of the nation.

T4 Personnel at Grafeneck

Bus unloading at Grafeneck

On January 6, 1940, T4 personnel who were recruited for the secret killing operation arrived at the facility. At their head was Grafeneck’s new medical director, physician Horst Schumann. In late May or early June 1940, Schumann was transferred to the T4 killing center at Sonnenstein, near Dresden. At Grafeneck, Dr. Ernst Baumhard replaced Schumann as medical director.

Approximately 100 Grafeneck personnel worked under Schumann’s, and later Baumhard’s, direction. These included physicians, nurses, transport personnel, administrative staff, police, and security officials. They also included the so-called Brenner (“burners” or “stokers”) who cremated victims’ corpses in the crematoria.

Grafeneck Victims

Grafeneck victim
Theodor K.

Grafeneck was the first functioning T4 killing center. Its operations commenced on January 18, 1940. Twenty-five male patients arrived from the Eglfing-Haar facility in Munich that day. Dr. Schumann personally escorted them to the old coach house. There, Schumann gassed them in the newly constructed gas chamber. From this date until December 1940, personnel killed patients by means of gassing on an almost daily basis, excluding Sundays and holidays.

Throughout the year, transport personnel collected disabled patients targeted by euthanasia authorities. The patients were transferred by bus from their home institutions to Grafeneck. Within hours of their arrival, they were ushered into the gas chamber. The gas chamber was disguised as a shower installation. The patients were gassed with pure, chemically produced carbon monoxide gas. The physician viewed the victims through a small window in the gas chamber door. After confirming they were dead, he summoned the facility’s stokers. The personnel removed the bodies and incinerated them in three crematory ovens.

The first people killed at Grafeneck came from the southwest region of Germany. Most were patients at institutions located in the states of Baden and Württemberg. But Grafeneck's geographic reach expanded as patients were brought there from further afield, including from Bavaria, Hessen, and North Rhine Westphalia.

End of Operations at Grafeneck

Horst Schumann

In December 1940, the killings at Grafeneck came to an abrupt end as the clandestine activities at the castle began to attract public attention. In response to public pressure, euthanasia officials hastily deactivated the killing center. The last gassing of patients and the cremation of their remains took place on December 12–13, 1940.

According to internal statistics kept by the T4 program, 9,839 patients were killed at the Grafeneck facility. During a trial in 1949, however, West German authorities established that the number of victims was higher than wartime records showed, with 10,654 persons murdered at the facility.

Grafeneck Staff at T4 and Operation Reinhard Killing Centers

Shortly before Grafeneck closed, most of the facility’s staff transferred to the newly established Hadamar T4 facility near Frankfurt in Hessen.

Both Grafeneck medical directors, Schumann and Baumgard, continued their murderous work at other killing centers. Schumann had already been transferred to the T4 killing center at Sonnenstein in late May or early June 1940. He later conducted brutal sterilization experiments at the Auschwitz camp complex. And when the Grafeneck facility closed, Baumhard and his deputy, Dr. Günther Hennecke, transferred to the Hadamar T4 killing center.

Kurt Franz

In addition, several T4 operatives at Grafeneck later served as German personnel in the killing centers of Operation Reinhard (Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka). These included: Kurt Franz, the last commandant of Treblinka; Lorenz Hackholz, a gassing specialist; and German guards Willi Mentz, August Miete, and Heinrich Unverhau. Johann Niemann, who worked as a stoker at Grafeneck, eventually became the deputy commandant of Sobibor.

Postwar Justice

The perpetrators of the “euthanasia” killings at Grafeneck were not immediately called to account for their crimes. After the German surrender in May 1945, the Allied occupation left euthanasia offenses—a German-on-German crime—to newly reconstructed German courts. In the early postwar years, West German courts pursued such cases diligently. Defendants who were found guilty incurred stiff sentences.

By 1948, however, concerns about the Cold War encouraged a comprehensive clemency policy for Nazi crimes. For example, approximately 100 T4 operatives collaborated to murder thousands of patients at Grafeneck. Only eight of these perpetrators were tried. Their proceedings were held in Tübingen from June 8 until July 5, 1949. Further, only three of the eight defendants were convicted. Their sentences ranged from one and a half to five years. The chief perpetrators escaped justice entirely.

After resigning from the T4 organization during World War II, gassing physicians Ernst Baumhard and Günther Hennecke joined the German navy. Both died in battle in 1943.

Grafeneck’s first T4 physician, Horst Schumann, who later served at Auschwitz, evaded capture by West German authorities. Schumann fled to Africa where he operated a leper colony in Sudan. In 1966, he was extradited from Ghana. Schumann appeared before a German court in September 1970. However, proceedings were halted in March 1971. Due to his ill health, Schumann was released from remand prison in July 1972. He died in 1983.

Links to more articles on this topic: 

• Berlin memorial to the victims murdered by the T-4 Euthanasia Program (Link).
• Healthcare sector supported the Nazi euthanasia program (Link).
• Infant euthanasia. Is history repeating itself? (Link).

Assisted Suicide lobby wants your tax dollars to kill people

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

US federal law currently prohibits the use of appropriated funds for assisted suicide.

The assisted suicide lobby announced in their fundraising email on April 29, 2024 that they are spearheading a bill to force American to pay for assisted suicide (Medically approved killing by poison) with their tax dollars. The fundraising letter states:

The Patient Access to End-of-Life Care Act would end a ban on federal funding to help terminally ill people pay for medical aid in dying where it is currently authorized or will be authorized in the future.

The Patient Access to End-of-Life Act is sponsored by Representatives Brittany Pettersen (D-CO) and Scott Peters (D-CA) and would essentially replace the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997 which prohibited the use of appropriated funds for: 

1. causing or assisting in suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing;
2. compelling any person or entity to provide or fund any item, benefit, program, or service for such purpose; or 
3. asserting or advocating a legal right to cause or assist such actions.

The act is titled: The Patient Access to End-of-Life Care Act because the assisted suicide lobby intends to promote the funding of medically approved killing in conjunction with other end-of-life care, such as palliative care.

Based on the current political configuration, it is unlikely that this bill will pass, but it indicates the direction of the assisted suicide lobby and it makes the issue of medically assisted killing, which has essentially been a state by state issue, into a federal issue.

Oppose the Patient Access to End-of-Life Care Act. Don't let your tax dollars be used to kill people.

Canada's Federal Disability Benefit of $200 per month is inadequate to meet the needs of People with Disabilities.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition upholds that the Canadian federal budget announcement that people with disabilities, who qualify, can receive $200 more per month, is an insufficient amount to meet the basic needs of Canadians with disabilities. Alex Schadenberg

Meghan Schrader

Message from the Meghan Schrader

Instead of robustly funding the Disability Benefit that Canadian disability rights advocates had hoped would lift poor people with disabilities at least up to the poverty line, Justin Trudeau’s government allocated only $200 a month for the new benefit (twitter comment) and attached qualification for the benefit to the Disability Tax Credit, making it difficult to qualify for. (CTV news article).

The gutted sobbing of disabled people on disability benefits who were so hoping that they would finally be able to eat three times a day is an indictment of a government that prioritizes everything but disabled people. The fact that Canada’s government would give their starving and demoralized disabled citizens only an extra $6.18 a day is truly vile, and speaks to how much Canada, and the world, don't understand the needs of (Twitter comment) disabled people.

Moreover, the current Canadian government responded to the cries of disabled people with excuses and statements that Conservatives will simply cancel the benefit entirely. Every conservative voted for the benefit. The current government’s response is a hallmark of an abusive relationship: the government is telling the disabled people that they are killing and starving “no one will ever love you but me.” (Twitter comment).

One reason that I so strongly oppose assisted suicide is that there are too many in the United states who think like Justin Trudeau and the Canadian middle class (Article) and look longingly at Canada as a model (Article) for our country: “I want the free dental care, I want the $10 daycare, I want free lunches for my kids, I want the perfect autonomous death…” (Article) And those same people never consider the fact that they don’t actually need those entitlements in the same way that disabled people need accommodations and care; (Twitter comment) they don’t even think about the fact that disabled people exist. (Twitter comment) Others understand that their entitlements are coming at the expense of disabled people’s very lives, yet are willing to keep the people killing them in power because they want the free stuff.

Well, guess what, ableds: disabled people don’t owe you anything; we especially do not owe you our lives. You’re not entitled to anything at disabled people’s expense just because you want it.

All other Canadian political parties - the NDP, the Conservatives, the Greens - must roundly condemn the inadequate support for disabled people. (Twitter comment) And people in the United States need to stop looking at Canada as a model for how our society should function. All ethical people must join together and work hard to keep Canada’s degradation of the disabled people from oozing over our borders and making the already third class citizenship (Article) of disabled Americans (Meghan Schrader Twitter comment) even worse.

Meghan Schrader is an autistic person who is an instructor at E4 - University of Texas (Austin) and an EPC-USA board member.

Help the Calgary father of a 27-year-old autistic woman stop her euthanasia death.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Help the Calgary father of the 27-year-old autistic woman stop his daughter from being killed by euthanasia by donating to his legal expenses. (Link to the GiveSendGo campaign).

Due to a publication ban, the media refers to the father as (WV) and his daughter as (MV). WV contends that MV does not qualify for euthanasia because she is physically healthy, even though she is experience suicidal ideation.

I reported on April 9, 2024 that the father was granted an injunction preventing the euthanasia death of his 27-year-old autistic daughter, at least until the Alberta Court of Appeal decides on his challenge to the decision approving his daughters's euthanasia death.

This case is particularly distressing for me since I have an autistic son.

The Calgary father has already accumulated more than $100,000 in legal expenses in his attempt to prevent the euthanasia death of his healthy autistic daughter.

The legal expenses will continue to climb as his lawyers prepare for the Alberta Court of Appeal hearing in October 2024.

Help the Calgary father of the 27-year-old autistic woman stop his daughter from being killed by euthanasia by donating to his legal expenses. (Link to the GiveSendGo campaign).

Articles on this topic:

• Great news: Judge prevents euthanasia death of Calgary autistic woman (Link). 
• Father of a 27-year-old autistic woman appeals court ruling in euthanasia decision (Link).
  

Canada's Euthanasia Regime - Interview with Dr Ramona Coelho

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Ramona Coelho

An excellent interview of Dr Ramona Coelho by Jonathon Van Maren was published in the European Conservative on April 24, 2024. 

As stated by Van Maren, Dr Coelho is a family physician in London, Ontario, with a practice largely serving marginalized patients, she has testified before Parliament, laid out the dangers of legal euthanasia on TV and in print, and presciently warned policymakers of many of the scenarios we now see unfolding. Dr Coelho is a leading voice opposing Canada's euthanasia regime.

Van Maren begins the article by bringing up two of the most recent Canadian euthanasia stories and commenting on the issue of euthanasia for mental illness alone:

For the past several years, the euthanasia horror stories unfolding in Canada have captured the attention of the press on both sides of the Atlantic. I have detailed many of them in my reporting; as I write this, a desperate father is battling in court to prevent his healthy 27-year-old autistic daughter from dying by doctor-administered lethal injection; another Canadian has been approved for euthanasia after developing bedsores while waiting for necessary healthcare that is increasingly difficult to obtain.

At the end of January, the Trudeau government delayed, for the second time, their plan to expand euthanasia eligibility to Canadians struggling solely with mental illness. Initially, a strong majority of Canadians supported legal euthanasia in limited circumstances. The events of the past several years have begun to erode that support, and the Conservative Party is campaigning on a promise to pass legislation banning euthanasia for mental illness. It is an incredibly pressing issue: if suicide-by-doctor were to be made available to the mentally ill, Canada’s ever-rising euthanasia death rate would spike overnight.

Dr Coelho defines what the term MAiD means:

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) is the Canadian term that refers to both euthanasia and assisted suicide, although up to this point 99.9% of cases have been euthanasia (physician administered lethal cocktail to induce death, usually by IV) so I think it’s accurate and clearer to refer to this as euthanasia. However, it is possible that there might be more cases of assisted suicide (patient self-administers the lethal cocktail of drugs) in coming years as both are permitted. I will refer to it as MAiD just for ease and as some very few cases do involve assisted suicide.

Van Maren then asks Dr Coelho to comment on euthanasia for mental illness:

MAiD really never should have been an option for those with mental illness. Canadians face major barriers to access mental health care and numerous Canadian psychiatrists have voiced serious reservations about this expansion. We do not even understand how clinically to distinguish between the overwhelming majority of those with mental illness, who recover with suicide prevention and services, and those very few who might not. Such an expansion would allow healthcare practitioners arbitrarily to decide who deserves suicide prevention and who is deemed eligible for MAiD, potentially placing many Canadians’ lives at risk.

The legislation permitting MAiD for mental illness should have been permanently abandoned. But despite recommendations from its most recent parliamentary committee and most Canadian provinces asking that the legislation be indefinitely paused, the government has chosen simply to delay its implementation once again, this time until 2027. Politically, the delay in implementation of this legislation, rather than stopping it altogether, seems imprudent for the current government, as it may become a significant election issue. I would say Canadians are increasingly recognizing the risks of expanding MAiD to include individuals whose sole medical condition is mental illness.

Dr Coelho then comments on possible further expansions of MAiD in Canada:

And besides this, we still have the 2023 parliamentary recommendations to include MAiD for “mature” children and advance directives for euthanasia next. MAiD was initially introduced as an exceptional procedure to be used only for those near death with intolerable suffering, but once society embraces the intentional ending of one’s life as a treatment for suffering, it becomes practically impossible to contain, with Canada being a case in point.

Dr Coelho then comments on the concerns with medical safety:

In February 2024, the Canadian Human Rights Commission expressed ongoing concern over reports indicating that individuals with disabilities opt for MAiD due to a lack of essential support services. The CHRC is joined by UN human rights experts, Canadian disability groups, Indigenous advocates, social justice groups, and numerous medical and legal professionals in these concerns.

I was interviewed for a documentary featuring the tragic MAiD death of Rosina Kamis, who, citing poverty and loneliness, chose MAiD due to insufficient support. Some Canadian bioethicists argue that MAiD under “unjust social circumstances” is a form of “harm reduction.” However, this is not a free autonomous choice, but death driven by desperation and structural inequalities.

Messages promoting suicide and easier access to lethal means heighten suicide risks. MAiD exacerbates these dangers, endangering vulnerable individuals by increasing the likelihood of being induced into a premature death. Additionally, healthcare providers’ often inaccurately rate the quality of life of individuals with disabilities as poor, which may lead to their biases leading to suggesting or approvals of MAiD, particularly when patients are experiencing transient low points in their lives.

Dr Coelho then comments on the model practise standard:

Health Canada’s “Model Practice Standard for Medical Assistance in Dying” suggests informing patients about MAiD if the practitioner suspects it aligns with patient values and preferences. In contrast, other jurisdictions discourage or prohibit raising death as a treatment option due to concerns about undue patient pressure. The model practice standard’s stance on “conscientious objection” supports “effective referral” of patients. This means that, if a physician is concerned that MAiD is not a patient’s best option, they must still refer the patient to ensure access to MAiD, instead of pausing or stopping the process.

Examples of these unsafe policies are evident in MAiD training videos. In one, an instructor recognizes that patients may choose MAiD for unmet psycho-social needs, suggesting referral for MAiD completion if discomfort arises. Another instructor in a separate video advises continuing the MAiD process even if a practitioner believes a patient doesn’t qualify for MAiD, suggesting doctor shopping is acceptable.

Certain regions in Canada have the highest MAiD death rates globally. By 2022, nearly 45,000 MAiD deaths occurred across Canada since its legalization—almost 13,000 in 2022 alone, with estimates for 2023 approaching 16,000. Canada’s MAiD regime has chosen to prioritize accessibility over patient safety.

Dr Coelho then comments on her experience with the disability community:

Realizing my political naivety while advocating for legislative change has been a profoundly sad and eye-opening experience. Despite the government’s repeated assurances of listening to the concerns of persons with disabilities and their advocates, the reality witnessed during parliamentary hearings has been disheartening, as their voices are frequently disregarded or dismissed.

Throughout these hearings, committee members have consistently challenged the credibility of accounts detailing abuses within the Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) system. They assert an unwavering trust in MAiD assessors, portraying them as professionals deserving of complete faith and trust to get it right every time. However, this confidence is inconsistently applied, as committee members often interrupt and question the integrity of medical and legal experts expressing caution or offering alternative perspectives.

Furthermore, the presence of physicians who are now part of the government on MAiD parliamentary committees has not resulted in the expected depth of medical expertise or unbiased guidance. Instead, their contributions have often been marked by bias, with loaded questions designed to limit responses and paint concerned witnesses as advocating for prolonged suffering. This portrayal is starkly at odds with the reality faced by patients who endure lengthy waits for treatment. This waiting for care and being neglected by our society and health care system wears people down and can lead to choosing MAiD as the only accessible option.

Dr Coelho then comments on the euthanasia lobby:

Behind the scenes, powerful lobby groups in Canada wield significant influence in shaping the debate surrounding the expansion of MAiD. These groups, backed by substantial funding for government relations, dictate the trajectory of discussions, often overshadowing the voices of the underfunded and marginalized disability community. Despite the government’s claims of inclusivity, the reality is that this debate has been primarily driven by powerful interests, rather than the voices of those directly affected.

In essence, the legislative process surrounding MAiD in Canada has exposed systemic flaws and power imbalances, highlighting the urgent need for genuine inclusivity and meaningful dialogue that centers on the experiences and concerns of the real stakeholders, the disability community, which is most directly impacted by these policies.

Coelho is then asked about what must be done to reduce MAiD:

Thomas Insel’s book Healing drives home the critical role community life, support networks, and purpose have in dictating mental health outcomes, thereby highlighting the need for proactive measures. Firstly, the government must fulfill its duty to ensure everyone gets timely care, counseling, and the community resources they need. It’s unfortunate that we’re offering death as an option without properly supporting people who are struggling. At the same time, establishing a national suicide prevention framework is imperative to mitigate the risk factors that could contribute to MAiD decisions.

Palliative care centers have to be prioritized, offering a range of services including pain management, emotional support, end-of-life planning, and counseling individuals facing terminal illness, alongside robust access to disability and mental health services. This entails a concerted effort to build expertise, expand medical care systems, and ensure widespread accessibility.

Investment in community systems is essential too, fostering relationships and a sense of purpose and belonging. By organizing regular community gatherings, support groups, and educational workshops, communities can forge stronger bonds, mitigating feelings of isolation and despair. On the ground level, everyone can be involved in making sure neighbours and family members feel they are needed and cared for.

Furthermore, Canada’s commitment to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities must be upheld, ensuring the provision of essential services and support for those with disabilities and chronic illnesses. The government has to address the systemic lack of social, economic, and health supports in order to alleviate the suffering that may otherwise drive individuals towards MAiD. We know that suffering from social and economic deprivation actually increases overall suffering from disability as it becomes conflated.

In essence, reducing the number of victims under Canada’s MAiD regime requires a comprehensive approach. Only through concerted efforts across these fronts can Canada ensure the dignity and well-being of its citizens, particularly those facing vulnerability and suffering. We need to make people feel they can live with dignity.

Dr Coelho is then asked what a future government must do:

Sadly, many Canadians remain unaware of the risks of our MAiD regime. As I mentioned, once a society embraces ending life as a solution to suffering, containing this procedure becomes nearly impossible. Tragically, the victims of this system are dead and can be forgotten, silenced, unable to recount the injustices that may have influenced their “choosing” death.

Therefore, to start, completely repealing Bill C-7 is imperative. Anything less is unacceptable to the disability community and greatly perpetuates the risks that death is driven by unjust circumstances.

There is also an urgent need to redefine the terms used in legislation, particularly ambiguous terms like reasonably foreseeable natural death (RFND). Through broad interpretations, individuals with potentially years of life ahead of them are prematurely ending their lives through the RFND track—a practice that was intended only for those in the final stages of life. Moreover, we have people who are simply stating they will refuse care to make themselves sick enough to qualify for RFND; MAiD should only be available to those with a disease prognosis of six months or less, not to individuals deliberately inducing sickness to qualify.

It is necessary to stem the influence of powerful lobby groups and expansionist medical advocacy organizations like the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers (CAMAP). CAMAP received 3.3 million Canadian dollars in funding from Health Canada to educate MAiD assessors and providers and has many problematic guidance policies. A balanced independent panel of experts, as urged by the Canadian Human Rights Commissioner, should be convened to review the MAiD regime. This panel should guide legislative amendments, Health Canada policies, and provincial regulatory bodies to increase patient safety.

Many existing policies clearly require revision, including raising MAiD unsolicited, enforced mandatory referrals, and the worrisome trend of integrating MAiD into all care facilities. Ideally, a civil board comprising a multidisciplinary team should evaluate each case before approval to mitigate choices to die that are driven by structural inequalities. We also need better, publicly available, data collection all around.

This is not merely a matter of individual autonomy; it is a public safety concern that is affecting marginalized and disabled individuals. When discussing autonomy, we must consider relational autonomy—what we owe to each other and society as a whole. MAiD is a public policy, so we must consider the well-being of all—not just those seeking to end their lives on their own terms.

Previous articles by or articles concerning Dr Ramona Coelho (Article links).

EPC-USA Disability Rights Opposition New Hampshire to Assisted Suicide Bill HB1283.

Dear Senator

Meghan Schrader

EPC-USA's Fact Sheet is testimony regarding the social harms attached to assisted suicide legislation like HB1283. However, given that assisted suicide’s negative impact is going to fall primarily on the disabled community, the EPC felt that we should submit a more detailed analysis of how assisted suicide undermines disability rights, and whose advice on this matter ought to be heeded by members of the Assembly.

Members of the EPC board with training in the fields of disability studies and advocacy have noted that some assisted suicide advocates are trying to hijack disability rights for their own purposes. For instance, an able-bodied man named Christopher Riddle has done pro-assisted suicide advocacy in the Northeast while presenting himself as a “disability rights advocate.” Riddle is a colleague of Udo Schuklenk, one of the architects of Canada’s euthanasia program, and Riddle enthusiastically approves of that program.

Moreover, Riddle’s theories about disability rights have been reasonably criticized as lacking any empirical grounding in the experiences of disabled people. He has no experience or personal stake in the practical implications of his ideas.

Furthermore, Riddle’s scholarship dehumanizes disabled people who are harmed by assisted suicide; he frames anyone who might be harmed by assisted suicide as the equivalent of a car accident statistic. He asserts that harm that assisted suicide might cause for people with disabilities “ought not to be of special concern.” Hence, Riddle is willing to sacrifice people with disabilities for the right to die movement’s agenda; he is not the “disability rights advocate” he claims to be.

For a more accurate understanding of how the disabled community has approached the issue of assisted suicide, we encourage you to watch a video created by disability studies ethicist Harold Braswell about disability rights opposition to assisted suicide. Braswell has studied the right to die issue extensively.

There are other very important facts that legislators must take into account when considering how assisted suicide is impacting the disabled community:

The American Association of Suicidology made a 2017 statement saying that “MAiD” was not suicide. But in 2023 the AAS had to retract that statement because it was used in the 2019 Truchon decision that expanded assisted suicide to disabled Canadians, which was opposed by the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention.The consequences of the AAS’s statement are an example of how green lighting assisted suicide for the terminally ill easily results in violence against people with disabilities.

In 2021, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of People with Disabilities asserted that all assisted suicide laws violate its Convention On The Rights of People with Disabilities.

Peer-reviewed research establishes that people are more likely to view suicide as acceptable if the victim is disabled, and people with disabilities often lack access to comprehensive suicide prevention care. This bill exacerbates that problem by laying the scaffolding for “MAiD” to become a substitute for the suicides of persons with disabilities.

Well-known right to die leader Thaddeus Mason Pope has tweeted that it’s good for disabled people to die by suicide; the director of Compassion and Choices appeared on Dr. Phil with Pope in 2023. If you pass this bill, you empower and reward a contingent of people who want disabled people’s suicides to be a “medical procedure.”

We urge you to allow HB1283 to die this session because regardless of its content, it rewards a movement that is hostile to people with disabilities. Exacerbating the oppression that disabled people already face so that the proponents can plan their deaths is unwise and unjust.

Sincerely,

Meghan Schrader, Disability Rights EPC-USA
Josephine L.A. Glaser, MD.,FAAFP
Colleen E. Barry, Chairperson
Kenneth Stevens, MD
William Toffler, MD
Gordon Friesen
Alex Schadenberg
Epc_USA@yahoo.com

Endnotes

1. https://twitter.com/cariddlephd/status/1373071051631038470
2. http://www.lpbr.net/2014/08/disability-and-justice-capabilities.html?m=1
3. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09687599.2014.984931
4. https://philpapers.org/rec/RIDAD
5. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vdpwdt26wwq42ak0eraee/Braswell_PAS-Statement_To-Send-1.mov?rlkey=05vve2sis2s4sy51hma27jx2u&dl=0
6. https://www.slu.edu/arts-and-sciences/bioethics/faculty/braswell-harold.php
7. https://suicidology.org/2023/03/08/aas-update-on-previous-statement/
8. https://twitter.com/TrudoLemmens/status/1666067817035190272
9. https://suicideprevention.ca/media/statement-on-recent-maid-developments/
10. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/01/disability-not-reason-sanction-medically-assisted-dying-un-experts
11. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26402344/
12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXVrgtTNN2Y&t=2108s
13. https://twitter.com/ThaddeusPope/status/1669450726831976449

Letter to British Parliamentarians opposing euthanasia.

This letter was sent to elected representatives in the British Parliament and shared.

Ann Farmer

Dear ... 

As your constituent I am writing to draw your attention to the above debate, in the hope that you will be able to attend and speak against attempts to legalise assisted suicide/euthanasia, now going under the euphemism 'assisted dying'.

Given the appalling outcomes reported from those jurisdictions that have gone down this route, most notoriously Canada, where 'strict safeguards' have been swiftly dismantled to allow death for disability and also poverty, https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-call-to-defeat-new-hampshire-assisted.html it is vital that we do not follow them down this slippery slope.

Significantly, advocates of 'assisted dying' neglect to mention that this issue has been thoroughly debated and decisively rejected by Parliament in the past few years, on the very valid ground that there is no safe way of killing.

I trust you will attend, or alternatively make the case for 'assisted living' for all, rather than the money-saving expedient of euthanomics.

With all best wishes,

Ann Farmer
Woodford Green
Essex

Scotland's assisted suicide bill allows 16-year-olds with Anorexia to be killed.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Professor David Jones

Georgia Edkins, the Scottish Political Editor for the Daily Mail reported on April 20, 2024 that 16 year-olds with Anorexia could be approved for assisted suicide under Scotland's assisted dying bill. Edkins reports:

Teenagers with anorexia could apply for state-backed ‘suicide’ under ‘extremely dubious’ laws proposed in Scotland, experts warned last night.

Newly published Holyrood legislation would allow NHS patients to request prescriptions for a life-ending cocktail of drugs that induce a coma, shut down the lungs and eventually stop the heart.

Edkins reporting on comments by ethicist David Jones writes:

David Jones, professor of bioethics at St Mary’s University in London and director of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre, said: ‘It is extremely, extremely dubious.

We’re talking about “assisted dying” as a euphemism, and it’s always assisted suicide.

‘Suicide is something that we should try to seek to prevent and provide alternatives to, whether it’s for an old person or a young person, whether they have progressive disease or disability.’

‘Terminal in the Scottish Bill is defined as someone having a progressive incurable disease from which you could die. It could cover anorexia.

Jones also warned that the assisted suicide bill that is sponsored by Liam McArthur would:

• Let people as young as 16 die before their lives had properly begun;
• Not require someone to be close to death to be eligible for ‘assisted dying’;
• Not make a psychiatric assessment mandatory ahead of the life-ending procedure.

Edkins reported Jones as stating:‘

It is called the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, so that proclaims itself as being restricted to people who are terminally ill, but it defines people that are terminally ill only as people who have a progressive incurable disease, which is at an advanced stage. It doesn’t mean that you’re dying.’

Jones referenced the fact that in Scotland, a person is deemed an adult at 16, whereas in Oregon the age is 18. Based on the definition of terminal illness in the bill, someone with Anorexia could be approved for assisted suicide at the age of 16. Jones states:

‘There have been cases of people with anorexia having assisted dying in Oregon.’

Edkins ends her article by stating:

Perhaps most troubling is Professor Jones’ suggestion that the embattled NHS in Scotland could resort to suggesting death as a viable replacement for treatment.

He said: ‘What you’re starting to see in Canada is that doctors will suggest to patients, “Have you thought of assisted dying”, including people who, for example, have had difficulty getting support for social services to live at home.

‘There’s nothing in the Scottish legislation that prevents that.’

Article: Scotland's Deceptive euthanasia bill redefines terminal illness to include people with disabilities (Link).

Do No Harm and say No to Assisted Suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Amy Smith

While cleaning up my emails I came across this excellent commentary by Amy Smith, who is a physician-assistant in Minnesota titled: Pledge to 'do no harm' and say No to physician-assisted suicide. Smith's commentary was published in the Minnesota Reformer on April 13, 2024. Smith begins her article by explaining why she opposes assisted suicide.

I’ve spent the past 20 years of my career as a physician assistant saving lives in the emergency department. On a daily basis, I pledge to “do no harm” to my patients as I care for them and render lifesaving aid.

As a medical provider, the greatest harm I can imagine is being responsible for ending my patient’s life. That is why I am deeply troubled by ongoing conversations at the Minnesota Legislature to legalize physician-assisted suicide.

This proposed legislation goes against the fact that a health care providers’ obligation is to care for their patients — not to assist in killing them — no matter the circumstance.

Smith is also concerned with the inevitable future extensions to the legislation.

It is also evident that limits on assisted suicide erode over time. These laws often begin with eligibility limited to terminal illness and a six-month life expectancy; however, countries like Belgium, Netherlands and Canada have gradually expanded criteria to offer assisted suicide to people with depression, disability and chronic pain, as well as people with limited income. Patients often seek assisted suicide out of fear of becoming a burden. Legalizing it reinforces harmful misconceptions that people experiencing chronic illness are a burden and encourages people to end their lives prematurely. And euphemisms like “medical aid in dying” make it more palatable for people to accept this as okay, masking the fact that medical professionals are prescribing medication that results in suicide.

Smith continues by sharing personal experience with death and dying:

Like many Minnesotans, suicide is also a deeply personal subject for me. My dad ended his own life when I was 12 years old. Most people would say that my dad’s death at age 35 was a tragedy. They’d say we should try our best to prevent suicide. I agree.

I also lost my mom to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis when she was only 62. This proposed legislation tells us that it would not have been a tragedy for my mom, with the assistance of her medical provider, to end her own life prematurely. Instead, this legislation says it would have been the caring thing to do. I disagree.

Both situations are absolute tragedies. In both scenarios, a person should have access to supportive, person-centered care — not a legal path to suicide.

Smith concludes by repeating why she opposes assisted suicide.

Is physician-assisted suicide really how we want to care for patients in Minnesota? As a physician assistant, wife, mother — and as an orphan daughter — my answer is a resounding ‘No’.

Thank you Amy Smith for your personal and professional opposition to killing your patients.