Podcasts about Final Exit Network

This week, we track a tsunami of (mostly bad) bills in Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, West Virginia and North Dakota. After hearing sneak previews of some of FFRF's other shows — "Ask an Atheist," "Freethought Matters" and "We Dissent" — we talk with Brian Ruder, president of the board of the Final Exit Network, which offers people who are unbearably suffering an intractable medical condition the option to die legally and peacefully.

Chris Palmer is an author, speaker, wildlife filmmaker, conservationist, educator, professor, and grandfather. He dedicated his professional career to conservation but now devotes his life to end-of-life activism. Bloomsbury will publish his 10th book, Achieving a Good Death: A Practical Guide to the End of Life, on October 1, 2024. He is a trained hospice volunteer and founded and runs an aging, death, and dying group for the Bethesda Metro Area Village. He serves as Vice Chair of the Board of Montgomery Hospice & Prince George's Hospice (MHI), is vice president of the Board of the Funeral Consumers Alliance of Maryland & Environs (FCAME), and serves on the Advisory Council for the Maryland Office of Cemetery Oversight (OCO). He also serves on the Boards of Final Exit Network, Hemlock Society of San Diego, and Funeral Consumers Alliance. He is on the Bethesda Metro Area Village Board and, until recently, was a Board member of the Green Burial Association of Maryland. Chris and his wife, Gail Shearer, created and funded the “Finishing Strong Award” with the Washington Area Village Exchange (WAVE) to encourage villages to hold more discussions about end-of-life issues. WAVE is the largest regional village organization in the nation. He frequently gives presentations and workshops to community groups on aging, death, and dying issues. Chris is also president of the MacGillivray Freeman Films Educational Foundation, which produces and funds IMAX films on science and conservation issues. MacGillivray Freeman Films is the world's largest and most successful producer of IMAX films. For over thirty-five years, he spearheaded the production of more than 300 hours of original programming for prime-time television and the IMAX film industry, which won him and his colleagues many awards, including two Emmys and an Oscar nomination. He has worked with Robert Redford, Paul Newman, Jane Fonda, Ted Turner, and many other celebrities. His IMAX films include Whales, Wolves, Dolphins, Bears, Coral Reef Adventure, and Grand Canyon Adventure. During his filmmaking career, he swam with dolphins and whales, came face-to-face with sharks and Kodiak bears, camped with wolf packs, and waded hip-deep through Everglade swamps. His books include Finding Meaning and Success: Living a Fulfilled and Productive Life, published by Rowman & Littlefield in 2021. Proceeds from all of Chris's books fund scholarships for American University students. Starting in 2004, Chris served on American University's full-time faculty as Distinguished Film Producer in Residence until his retirement in 2018. While at AU, he founded and directed the Center for Environmental Filmmaking at the School of Communication. He also created and taught a popular class called Design Your Life for Success. Chris and his wife, Gail, have lived in Bethesda, Maryland, for nearly 50 years and raised three daughters. They now have nine grandchildren. Chris was a stand-up comic for five years and has advanced degrees from London and Harvard. He has jumped out of helicopters, worked on an Israeli kibbutz, and was a high school boxing champion. Chris is currently learning to juggle, draw, dance, play tennis, and play the piano. He loves standing on his hands for exercise, keeps a daily gratitude journal, and has a 30-page personal mission statement. More information on Chris: Chris's filmmaking career began in 1983 when he founded National Audubon Society Productions, a nonprofit film company and part of the National Audubon Society, which he led as president and CEO for eleven years. In 1994, he founded National Wildlife Productions, a nonprofit multimedia company and part of the National Wildlife Federation, which he led as president and CEO for ten years. His first two published books were on wildlife filmmaking: Shooting in the Wild in 2010 and Confessions of a Wildlife Filmmaker in 2015. They were followed by Raise Your Kids to Succeed: What Every Parent Should Know in 2017 and Now What, Grad? Your Path to Success After College (First Edition in 2015 and the Second Edition in 2018). In 2019, he wrote College Teaching at its Best: Inspiring Students to be Enthusiastic, Lifelong Learners, and in 2021, he wrote Finding Meaning and Success: Living a Fulfilled and Productive Life. Rowman & Littlefield published his last five books. His next book, for Bloomsbury Publishing, is Achieving a Good Death. Bethesda Communications Group published Love, Dad in 2018, a 700-page book of his letters to his daughters, and Open Heart: When Open-Heart Surgery Becomes Your Best Option in 2021, a book co-written with his daughter Christina (a family doctor). Chris and Christina have written half a dozen books for children on health-related issues. Chris gives pro bono presentations and workshops on various topics, including how to live a meaningful and successful life, aging well, achieving a good death, living well to die well, medical aid-in-dying, decluttering and death cleaning, completing advance directives, writing memoirs, composing legacy letters and ethical wills, funeral planning, green ways of body disposition, and hospice care. In 2015, Chris spoke on wildlife filmmaking at TEDxAmericanUniversity. While teaching at AU, he was a stand-up comedian and performed regularly in DC comedy clubs for five years. In 2017, he founded and now directs a group on aging and dying well as part of the Bethesda Metro Area Village, where he serves as a Board member. Chris was honored with the Frank G. Wells Award from the Environmental Media Association and the Lifetime Achievement Award for Media at the 2009 International Wildlife Film Festival. In 2010, he was honored at the Green Globe Awards in Los Angeles with the Environmental Film Educator of the Decade award. In 2011, he received the IWFF Wildlife Hero of the Year Award for his “determined campaign to reform the wildlife filmmaking industry.” In 2012, he received the Ronald B. Tobias Award for Achievement in Science and Natural History Filmmaking Education. In addition, he received the 2014 University Faculty Award for Outstanding Teaching at AU, the 2015 University Film and Video Association Teaching Award, and the 2015 Lifetime Achievement Award at the International Wildlife Film Festival. In his twenty years before becoming a film producer, Chris was an officer in the Royal Navy, an engineer, a business consultant, an energy analyst, an environmental activist, chief energy advisor to a senior U.S. senator, and a political appointee in the Environmental Protection Agency under President Jimmy Carter. Chris holds a B.S. with First Class Honors in Mechanical Engineering, an M.S. in Ocean Engineering and Naval Architecture from University College London, and a master's in Public Administration from Harvard University. He was also a Kennedy Scholar and received a Harkness Fellowship. Born in Hong Kong, Chris grew up in England and immigrated to the United States in 1972. He is married to Gail Shearer and is the father of three grown daughters: Kimberly, Christina, and Jennifer. He and Gail have endowed a scholarship for environmental film students at AU to honor Chris's parents and encourage the next generation to save the planet. christopher.n.palmer@gmail.com www.ChrisPalmerOnline.com

I think it is fair to say that Mark Dowie's latest book is unlike any other he's written. Brief and intensely personal, Mark writes about his experience with Judith Tannenbaum, poet and friend-of-a-friend who suffers from a debilitating yet often invisible illness with severe pain. Mark becomes a guide, dear friend and “amateur doula” for her as they share conversations and thoughts as she lives her final months. In this episode, he and I discuss Death Cafes, the Final Exit Network, Compassion and Choices, and of course the book, Judith Letting Go: Six Months in the World's Smallest Death Cafe.

Gary M. Wederspahn has been a board member of Final Exit Network since 2017.  As an advocate for the right to die issue, he was an early member of FEN's predecessor, the Hemlock Society.  Professionally, Gary served as a Peace Corps Director and Programming & Training Officer in four countries, followed by a career in corporate international marketing and training.  He authored many articles and a book on intercultural training and is a member of the FEN Speakers Bureau. His role at FEN is leadership of Outreach and Education. Gary holds a BA from the University of Washington, a master's from Stanford University and International Law studies at Universidad Libre in Bogotá.

People wanting to die to end their suffering or 'to not be a burden' is not new to society. The options to hasten death, while controversial, are growing. States are hearing from groups and organizations as well as citizens who want the choice to end their life when they want to do so, not necessarily at their natural end of life. But, is this method actually 'natural'? The Final Exit Network says Yes. Consider this: Dr. Sally Hall mentioned that people with dementia who choose this end-of-life option ‘leave some life on the table';  but, wouldn't anyone leave some life on the table when choosing to hasten their death? Is that the point of choosing this option? The Hemlock Society offers a "speedy, comfortable, certain solution" to end 'physical suffering or impending loss of selfhood'. https://www.hemlocksocietysandiego.org/ https://finalexitnetwork.org/Jean's Way, book by Derek HumphryFinal Exit,  book by Derek HumphryListen and read my blog: https://whilewerestillhere.com and https://grimtea.comStarting with Episode 56, the episode music was added. It was composed, produced and provided by Kyle Bray specifically for this show.The logo artwork was provided by Maddie's Plush Pouch.

This is an encore guest appearance by Dr. Faye Girsh. Faye was one of our early guests back in 2019, when she spoke about preparing for a peaceful death. As a former president of the Hemlock Society, Dr. Girsh is one of the preeminent authorities on the right to die movement. In this podcast, we continue with this right-to-die discussion, and specifically address the question of when we would be ready to have our life end. How would we talk with our closest family and friends about our decisions? We discuss the choices now available in different states, including stopping life-sustaining treatment and having medical assistance in dying. These are tough, thorny subjects and our guest is one of the most informed professionals to tackle these. Be sure to join us for another look at the right to die movement. Mini Bio Faye Girsh was President of the Hemlock Society USA from 1996 to 2004, following its founder, Derek Humphry.  Concurrent with this national position, she began the Hemlock Society of San Diego in 1987 and was its president for 22 years. Faye was also President of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies and currently serves as a board member. She initiated the Caring Friends program which eventually became the Final Exit Network. In 2003, she was awarded Hemlock's Lifetime Achievement Award. Dr. Girsh received her doctorate in Human Development from Harvard University. She was Associate Professor and Chair of the Psychology Department at Morehouse College for nine years, was a Research Associate at the University of Chicago, and taught at Roosevelt and Northwestern Universities. For 18 years she practiced as a clinical and forensic psychologist in San Diego. She has lectured extensively in the U.S. and abroad and has appeared extensively on radio and TV. For Our Listeners Website: Hemlock Society San Diego

This is an encore guest appearance by Dr. Faye Girsh. Faye was one of our early guests back in 2019, when she spoke about preparing for a peaceful death. As a former president of the Hemlock Society, Dr. Girsh is one of the preeminent authorities on the right to die movement. In this podcast, we continue with this right-to-die discussion, and specifically address the question of when we would be ready to have our life end. How would we talk with our closest family and friends about our decisions? We discuss the choices now available in different states, including stopping life-sustaining treatment and having medical assistance in dying. These are tough, thorny subjects and our guest is one of the most informed professionals to tackle these. Be sure to join us for another look at the right to die movement. Mini Bio Faye Girsh was President of the Hemlock Society USA from 1996 to 2004, following its founder, Derek Humphry. Concurrent with this national position, she began the Hemlock Society of San Diego in 1987 and was its president for 22 years. Faye was also President of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies and currently serves as a board member. She initiated the Caring Friends program which eventually became the Final Exit Network. In 2003, she was awarded Hemlock's Lifetime Achievement Award. Dr. Girsh received her doctorate in Human Development from Harvard University. She was Associate Professor and Chair of the Psychology Department at Morehouse College for nine years, was a Research Associate at the University of Chicago, and taught at Roosevelt and Northwestern Universities. For 18 years she practiced as a clinical and forensic psychologist in San Diego. She has lectured extensively in the U.S. and abroad and has appeared extensively on radio and TV. For Our Listeners Website: Hemlock Society San Diego See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an encore guest appearance by Dr. Faye Girsh. Faye was one of our early guests back in 2019, when she spoke about preparing for a peaceful death. As a former president of the Hemlock Society, Dr. Girsh is one of the preeminent authorities on the right to die movement. In this podcast, we continue with this right-to-die discussion, and specifically address the question of when we would be ready to have our life end. How would we talk with our closest family and friends about our decisions? We discuss the choices now available in different states, including stopping life-sustaining treatment and having medical assistance in dying. These are tough, thorny subjects and our guest is one of the most informed professionals to tackle these. Be sure to join us for another look at the right to die movement. Mini Bio Faye Girsh was President of the Hemlock Society USA from 1996 to 2004, following its founder, Derek Humphry.  Concurrent with this national position, she began the Hemlock Society of San Diego in 1987 and was its president for 22 years. Faye was also President of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies and currently serves as a board member. She initiated the Caring Friends program which eventually became the Final Exit Network. In 2003, she was awarded Hemlock's Lifetime Achievement Award. Dr. Girsh received her doctorate in Human Development from Harvard University. She was Associate Professor and Chair of the Psychology Department at Morehouse College for nine years, was a Research Associate at the University of Chicago, and taught at Roosevelt and Northwestern Universities. For 18 years she practiced as a clinical and forensic psychologist in San Diego. She has lectured extensively in the U.S. and abroad and has appeared extensively on radio and TV. For Our Listeners Website: Hemlock Society San Diego

This is an encore guest appearance by Dr. Faye Girsh. Faye was one of our early guests back in 2019, when she spoke about preparing for a peaceful death. As a former president of the Hemlock Society, Dr. Girsh is one of the preeminent authorities on the right to die movement. In this podcast, we continue with this right-to-die discussion, and specifically address the question of when we would be ready to have our life end. How would we talk with our closest family and friends about our decisions? We discuss the choices now available in different states, including stopping life-sustaining treatment and having medical assistance in dying. These are tough, thorny subjects and our guest is one of the most informed professionals to tackle these. Be sure to join us for another look at the right to die movement. Mini Bio Faye Girsh was President of the Hemlock Society USA from 1996 to 2004, following its founder, Derek Humphry. Concurrent with this national position, she began the Hemlock Society of San Diego in 1987 and was its president for 22 years. Faye was also President of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies and currently serves as a board member. She initiated the Caring Friends program which eventually became the Final Exit Network. In 2003, she was awarded Hemlock's Lifetime Achievement Award. Dr. Girsh received her doctorate in Human Development from Harvard University. She was Associate Professor and Chair of the Psychology Department at Morehouse College for nine years, was a Research Associate at the University of Chicago, and taught at Roosevelt and Northwestern Universities. For 18 years she practiced as a clinical and forensic psychologist in San Diego. She has lectured extensively in the U.S. and abroad and has appeared extensively on radio and TV. For Our Listeners Website: Hemlock Society San Diego See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This edition of Out in the Bay is our shortest so far. It's our first “quicky”! It comes to us from Jim Van Buskirk, a regional coordinator of the Final Exit Network. Final Exit Network advocates...

Learn about fascinating end-of-life rituals from cultures around the world. My guest Gary Wederspahn is a board member of the Final Exit Network and the author of a book and many articles on cross-cultural communications and relations. He has served as a Peace Corps Director in Guatemala, Costa Rica and Ecuador and has traveled in… Continue reading Ep. 352 Cross-Cultural End-of-Life Practices with Gary Wederspahn

In this episode, we have the privilege of speaking with Dave Warnock, a former Christian minister, and now atheist, who decided to live life to the fullest after being diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, also known as ALS or Lou Gehrig's Disease. Dave shares with us his life perspective, one which is seen through the lens of an atheist, dying man. Dave talks about what makes life meaningful and how one should be able to have control over their own end-of-life decisions. Dave's official website: https://daveoutloud.com/ Final Exit Network: https://finalexitnetwork.org/ ALS Association: https://www.als.org/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/burningeden666/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/burningeden666/support

In this episode, we have the privilege of speaking with Dave Warnock, a former Christian minister, and now atheist, who decided to live life to the fullest after being diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, also known as ALS or Lou Gehrig's Disease. Dave shares with us his life perspective, one which is seen through the lens of an atheist, dying man. Dave talks about what makes life meaningful and how one should be able to have control over their own end-of-life decisions. Dave's official website: https://daveoutloud.com/ Final Exit Network: https://finalexitnetwork.org/ ALS Association: https://www.als.org/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/burningeden666/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/burningeden666/support

Jane was introduced to Derek Humphry through a mutual acquaintance Gary Wederspahn from The Final Exit Network, which Derek happened to co-found. The opportunity to interview that man who championed the “Right To Die” movement across the globe was a huge honor. Join Jane as she talks to Derek about the movement and what he feels is the ultimate civil liberty. Jane will find out how he ended up getting involved with the right to die movement. This will include the story of his beloved first wife Jean, and the love story, Jean's Way . What does Derek think is waiting final_exit_book_183452946.jpgfor him in The Next Room? Jane will find out his answer to this question and much more on a Good Life, Good Death with Derek Humphry on The Next Room! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Terri Daniel, the founder of the Afterlife Awareness Conference, talks to Lowery Brown of the Final Exit Network.  The Final Exit Network, Inc. is an American 501 nonprofit right-to-die advocacy group incorporated under Florida law. It holds that mentally competent adults who suffer from terminal illnesses, intractable pain, or irreversible physical conditions have a right to voluntarily end their lives. https://finalexitnetwork.org The Final Exit Network, is also the sponsor of this year's Afterlife Awareness Conference!

Today's guest is Rev. Kevin Bradley, who serves on the board of the Final Exit Network, an organization that supports the human right to a death with dignity. The Final Exit Network (FEN) believes  that mentally competent adults who suffer from a terminal illness, intractable physical pain, chronic or progressive physical disabilities, or who face loss of autonomy and selfhood through dementia, have a basic human right to choose to end their lives when they judge their quality of life to be unacceptable.Kevin acts as a spiritual counselor and "exit guide" for FEN's clients, and in our interview he will describe what these roles entail and the variety of spiritual issues he encounters in his work.Kevin has a Master of Divinity degree from Brite Divinity School, completed an extended post-graduate residency at the VA hospital in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and is ordained in the United Church of Christ. Prior to joining FEN, Kevin testified in the Minnesota Senate in support of medical aid in dying and co-founded Interfaith Clergy for End-of-Life Options. He has served as a hospital and hospice chaplain and is currently a professional writer, speaker, and holistic stress management counselor.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/askdoctordeath?fan_landing=true)

Kevin Bradley from The Final Exit Network speaks to Jane about FEN's mission of supporting the human right to a death with dignity. They hold that mentally competent adults who suffer from a terminal illness, intractable physical pain, chronic or progressive physical disabilities, or who face loss of autonomy and selfhood through dementia, have a basic human right to choose to end their lives when they judge their quality of life to be unacceptable. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jane has a fascinating conversation with Robert Rivas who is the the lawyer for The Final Exit Network. Final Exit Network, Inc. is an American 501 nonprofit right to die advocacy group incorporated under Florida law. It holds that mentally competent adults facing intolerable suffering due to physical illness have a right to voluntarily end their lives. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome back to The Atheist Experience! Today’s show is hosted by Matt Dillahunty with guest Dave Warnock. Dave is an ex-pastor turned atheist who was recently diagnosed with ALS, a terminal illness. He now travels the world talking to interested groups about dying as an atheist, embracing life’s “moments,” all wrapped up in one statement: Dying Out Loud. (https://www.daveoutloud.com/) Dave also advocates death with dignity, which allows those with conditions like his to choose when they’re ready to go, when they have had enough pain.Javier wants to know what Dave and Matt think about the concept that religious leaders often are the catalysts of religious followers losing their faith.Marcus claims to have a syllogism that proves theists and atheists are just as rational as one another. He then explains that a bad argument isn’t necessarily one that leads to a wrong answer, as if we didn’t already know and say that on this show...constantly.David calls in to ask Dave a specialised question: What should I do to prepare my religious family for my death? Dave gives a recommendation toward the Final Exit Network (https://finalexitnetwork.org/).Amanda was adopted, and her biological older brother recently found her. Since then, that part of her family has been seemingly trying to convert and question her, and she’s wondering how to have these conversations without “scaring them off.”Will in Florida calls to ask if it makes sense to be a theist who believes in evolution...then asks if he should believe in god. What answer was he expecting?Richard starts off by asking what counts as “you?” He then stretches this out to mean that somehow one human is humanity. That’s our show today! If you want to support the show you can check out https://www.patreon.com/theatheistexperience for a monthly subscription to podcasts with NO ADS and other fun goodies, or https://tiny.cc/aenmerch for merch from all of the ACA’s shows! Matt is on Twitter @Matt_Dillahunty, and Dave is there @dwwarnock. Thanks for watching/listening!

Listen NowMedical aid in dying is now legal in nine states and the District of Columbia or is available to approximately one-fifth of the US population.  State medical societies allow physicians to provide treatment that comports with their conscience, survey data shows the practice enjoys substantial public support and the option is available in numerous foreign countries including the Netherlands where it is available to children with their parents' consent.  Nevertheless, the practice remains controversial.  Listeners may be aware I've discussed end of life care during several previous podcasts dating back to June 2013 when I discussed advanced care directives with the American Bar Association's Charlie Sabatino.  During this 35 minute discussion, Dr. Cohen begins our discussion by explaining how suicide became defined as a mental illness and life insurance coverage in instances where aid in dying has been exploited.  the problems associated with medical aid in dying for patients with disabilities and those suffering with Alzheimer's or related cognitive impairments and whether aid in dying should be restricted to the terminally ill.  He discusses several case histories including the aid in dying deaths of Admiral Chester J. and Joan Nimitz, Jack Kevorkian's work and efforts by the Hemlock Society, Caring Friends and the Final Exit Network.  Dr. Lewis Cohen is a Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts-Baystate School of Medicine, and an Adjunct Professor of Psychiatry at the Tufts University School of Medicine.  He is the recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship for Medicine and Health, two Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Residency awards, and a Bogliasco Fellowship for the Arts and Humanity, as well as the Eleanor and Thomas Hackett Award from the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry.  He is the author or co-editor of several previously published books, including No Good Deed.  Dr. Cohen earned his MD at the State University of New York Upstate Medical University and is board certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.For more information on A Dignified Ending go to: https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781538115749/A-Dignified-Ending-Taking-Control-Over-How-We-Die.For information on Compassion and Choices and Final Exit Network (successor organizations to the Hemlock Society) go to: https://compassionandchoices.org/ and http://www.finalexitnetwork.org/. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thehealthcarepolicypodcast.com

Matthew chats with Dave Warnock, a former pastor, who is Dying Out Loud. Diagnosed with ALS, he is hitting an enormous number of of podcasts and it was a genuine pleasure to talk to him for Ask An Atheist Anything.  During the conversation, Dave mentions the Final Exit Network. Visit http://www.finalexitnetwork.org/ to find out more about them and to support their work. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/reasonpress/message

It's a fact, there is an end of life for all of us. And, of course, we all want to ensure that we, and our loved ones, die in the most dignified, humane, and comfortable circumstances. For most people in developed countries, palliative care and hospice ensure that these goals are achieved. But, when you strip away these desires, concerns can be raised. The incredible expense. The lingering, sometimes protracted, decline. The emotional and psychological strain on the dying and their family members. And then there are the sensitive questions of "how long should you keep someone going?" and "what about euthanasia?" To discuss the myriad options and indeed challenges surrounding death, we welcome Ryan Nash, MD, MA (Director of The Ohio State University Center for Bioethics and Director of Division of Bioethics, Department of Biomedical Education and Anatomy), Robert Rivas (General Counsel for the Final Exit Network), and host Jo Ingles (Reporter at The Statehouse News Bureau). Recorded on May 29, 2019 at the Boat House at Confluence Park in Columbus, Ohio.

Why don't more people think about the way they want to die? Brian Ruder is a volunteer and an Exit Guide with the group Final Exit Network. He was born in Kansas and lives in Portland, Oregon with his wife of 43 years. His son is the editor of New Mobility magazine. Brian says, "I walk 10,000 steps a day and believe I will live to 100 unless someone kills me first." Join the 10 Things That Scare Me conversation, and tell us your fears here. And follow 10 Things That Scare Me on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook.

Hemlock Society San Diego (619) 233-4418 In this episode, Faye Girsh talks about the Right To Die and why she continues to support the movement.     Faye was the President of the Hemlock Society USA from 1996-2002 and Senior Vice President of End-of-Life Choices (Hemlock's temporary name) from 2002-2004. She had served on Hemlock's national board and essentially succeeded its founder, Derek Humphry. While President of the Hemlock Society she started the Caring Friends program, in 1998, which provided free, personal information and bedside support to Hemlock members considering a hastened death. For the last 25 years, she has appeared in debates and speeches all over the U.S. and has been on national TV and radio, including Court TV, Good Morning America, and Nightline. She was a speaker at the World Federation Conference in Melbourne, Toronto, Tokyo, and Amsterdam and has spoken at law schools, medical schools, civic groups, universities, and to many other audiences in this country, Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Transcript Dr. Bob: Well, hello and welcome to another episode of A Life and Death Conversation. I'm Dr. Bob Uslander, the founder of Integrated MD Care and the host of this series of podcasts. I have a very special guest with me today. All of my guests are special in some way or another, but Faye Girsh is a phenomenal woman. She is truly a ... I don't know. Some people I've heard to describe her as a marvel and an inspiration, so I'm thrilled to introduce you to my dear friend and co-conspirator, Faye Girsh. Faye Girsh: Hello, Bob. If you're looking for a wonder woman, I'm not it, but I'm very happy to expound on our mutually interesting subject. Dr. Bob: Fantastic. And many people would argue that point and would call you a wonder woman, because you've had a fascinating life, and I know a very interesting career, and the things that you've devoted yourself to and committed yourself to are of great importance to many of the people who are listening, because this is a life and death conversation and to me, you have really lived a very inspiring life, and you never shy away from the conversation about death. And you're somebody who has really devoted herself to helping others have the best possible experience of life and as well the best possible experience of death. Faye Girsh: Thank you for all that. Dr. Bob: And thank you for all that you've done, because what I get to do in my career, some of what gives my life and my career a great meaning is a direct result of the work that you've done over the years. Faye Girsh: It's very encouraging now that there are so many people working on this very important issue for all of us. Dr. Bob: And the issue that you're referring to it's called by lots of different things. When you're talking to somebody about what it is that you do and what you've devoted so much of your life to, what are the words that you like to use to describe it? Faye Girsh: I guess choices at the end of life, if I have less than 30 seconds, that people should be able to die the way they want to, in a humane and peaceful way, with their friends and loved ones present, and consistent with their own values and beliefs. That's the 45-second version. Dr. Bob: Actually, I think it was probably closer to 20 seconds, and it's- Faye Girsh: 20 seconds, okay. Dr. Bob: ... very descriptive and appropriate, I think. Faye Girsh: It sounds very simple too, and it's definitely not simple. In fact, the progress towards it is absolutely glacial because many people don't believe that we should have a choice in how we die, which to me is amazing and also very unjust, unfair. Dr. Bob: Yeah. I agree. And you can spend a lot of time exploring how we got here, and I'm sure there's some value in that because it helps those of us who really do believe that people deserve to have that choice in how, where and when they die. It helps us to see where the challenges remain, by looking at the barriers and the things that have been blocking that- Faye Girsh: You know, I'm reading an interesting book now, Bob, called Modern Death. I don't know if you've seen it. By a Pakistani American doctor named Haider Warraich.  I don't know how you pronounce his name exactly. But he talks about how the way we die has changed so much in the last 50 years because of technology, insurance, hospital, everything. It explains a lot to me about how things have changed from when I was a kid, and the doctor would make house calls, and I assume that if we were dying, he would have given us a nice injection and sent us on our way, with the agreement of the family, but it's a long way from that now. It's a little bit back to what you do when you visit people at their homes, which is so unusual these days. Dr. Bob: That does sound like an interesting book, and I'd like to make sure that the listeners have the resources that our very experienced guests are recommending. So "Modern Death" is the name of that book? Faye Girsh: Yeah. Dr. Bob: I'm going to pick up a copy. I appreciate that. Faye Girsh: Subtitled "How Medicine Changed the End of Life". Very interesting. I haven't finished it yet. I don't think he is necessarily a proponent of medically assisted dying, but he certainly leads up to where it should happen. Because I do think that probably 40 years ago, your GP – there weren't specialties then – your GP would come to your house and if you and your family decided that your suffering was unbearable, something in his black bag would help you through to the other side, just to use all these euphemisms. But that's changed, and the laws have changed. The laws are changing for the better for sure, as far as giving you more choice at the end of life, but it becomes very legalistic and formalistic. And maybe that's good because now there are safeguards, but when men safeguard, they're another man's obstacles. It has become cumbersome and complicated sometimes for people to have a peaceful death. Dr. Bob: Well, it seems like it used to be a pact between the doctor and the patient and family. We didn't need all the legislation; people trusted that their physician was going to be there and help them make those difficult decisions knowing it was time. We also didn't have all the other options available. We didn't have all the intensive care units with all of the life-prolonging technology. We didn't have skilled nursing facilities, where people could be housed for months or years- Faye Girsh: Well, actually we didn't even live that long. We didn't live long enough to have a prolonged and agonizing death. We didn't die of these degenerative diseases that we have now. So, yeah. I mean, this book explains a lot of that, but this is something that we've sort of accustomed ourselves to over the years, ways to keep people alive. Faye: I live in a retirement community. I'm 84, and it's getting close myself, and it's very interesting for me to see people, my friends, get old, get disabled, wind up in the care center, or the memory unit at worst, and die quietly.   We really don't know how the end comes for most people unless they are very close friends. And then we get a little picture frame, and a white rose in the mail room and says we died. No telling how we died, or what we went through before we died. And then a little obituary says he died peacefully in his sleep, which is usually a lie. And then a little tombstone says, "Rest in peace," but before that, sometimes there is no peace, and sometimes these steps to getting dead are very difficult. Dr. Bob: Yeah, as I'm aware of through my own experience and career. That's an interesting ... it's really fascinating to think about that, living in these communities, many of which are very nice, right? They're beautiful. They're like luxury hotels or cruise ships. Faye Girsh: They are. Right. Dr. Bob: And then there are all these folks who come to the dining room, or you see them in the common areas, and at the activities, and then you just don't see them anymore. Faye Girsh: That does happen. Or you see them on walkers, and then in wheelchairs, and then you don't see them. Or if they're your neighbors, they move to the care center, which we have a very nice arrangement. And then the next thing, sometimes as you know, is their little picture and white rose are up there in the mail room. It's fine. It's a good way to experience death. We don't talk about it very much here, but I've appreciated knowing that, because in my life I wasn't among people who were dying, but now, that's what happens. And what I hope is that people can die the way they want to. And I know you spend time here too and you know the people who live here. They accomplished a lot. We say our motto in Hemlock Society is, "Good life, good death," which we actually stole from Christian Bernard, I think, who wrote a book. The heart transplant doctor wrote a book, I think, called Good Life Good Death. And many of us here have lived a very good life, but we often don't have a good death... I've only been here four years ... but who went out to [inaudible 00:10:00] parking lot and shot himself because he had early dementia. And other people who've struggled with dementia then wind up in the memory unit here for years. In fact, we're having a situation now with my very good friend, whose wife has been there I think now eight years. And they have treated her without consulting the family, but now the family has put their foot down, absolutely no treatment. So she gets nothing. No vitamins or anything. And she's never been healthier. And finally, the family's decision to withhold food and hydration. And of all the things that have happened, is the caregiver has protested and said she would sue the institution here for murder. So, that's a very interesting development. Dr. Bob: I wasn't aware that was happening. Faye Girsh: Well, if I were at lunch now, which I usually would be, I would be talking to this man whose wife it is and trying to enlist one of his children to speak at one of our Hemlock meetings on this subject, which is the refusal of treatment in dementia. A very complicated subject, because a demented person can't speak for herself or himself, but the loved ones can, the person who's been appointed as health care agent can. But often those wishes are violated. I will have another speaker at our January meeting, whose mother-in-law has been in the institution. Those who know Bonnie, was once a very active, beautiful, intelligent woman, and they had been coerced, shamed I guess is the word, into providing treatment for her twice, because she has to have her hip fixed because she fell. She has to have her ulcer treated. Even though she knows nothing it is has made an advance [inaudible 00:12:18]. She doesn't want treatment. So these things are very complicated, refusing treatment, medically futile treatment that's given so often. And hospice is not saying that they can fix everything, but really they can. They can fix a lot of the pain even, but alone the existential suffering that people have because they can't do what they are used to doing, they don't want to be doped up at the end to alleviate the pain. They want a peaceful way out, and yet they either don't know what's available to them, or they can't find a doctor who will help them use even our California law, The End of Life Option Act. So we have a long way to go. We are about to finish our 30th year as Hemlock Society of San Diego, and we're looking for new directions to go in. And for me, dementia is the direction because it seems so hopeless to be a long-time demented patient with no way out. Dr. Bob: That is just ludicrous, to think about that when there are so many people, there are so many people who, as you say, lived wonderful lives, they raised children, they had careers, they contributed, and if they were able to look at the scenario and to see what's happened to them and what's being done, and you ask them what they would want, we know that they would want to not be there. Faye Girsh: That right. Dr. Bob: They would be ready to ask somebody to mercifully end their lives. And I'm a physician, and I know that there are laws that prohibit that, and we can't just take it upon ourselves. And even if people have indicated that they would never want to be alive in those circumstances, our hands are tied. But it's just a crazy, crazy situation- Faye Girsh: Fortunately, we can look North and see what Canada is doing. And Canada is making much more progress than we are, which is not surprising of course. But the Canadian law that went into effect the same time the California law went into, that is June 2016, permits active euthanasia. That is a patient can ask for a lethal injection. It's so much better than what we have to struggle with, these expensive bad-tasting drugs that you have to be able to swallow, to use. That's not such a good solution.  And also, Canadians have made their laws much more liberal. That is, it doesn't just take a doctor to do it. A nurse practitioner can help you die that way. And in our law in California, you have to have a psychologist or psychiatrist to ascertain that you are mentally competent, and another doctor to determine that you are terminal, in addition to the first doctor. But in Canada, that's not the case. A lot of different people can ascertain that you're mentally competent. And again, it doesn't have to be a doctor to provide the lethal injection. And the criteria is not a terminal illness as ours is, which to me, it is not even relevant to the question of how much you're suffering, and how long you've been suffering, and how long you have got to suffer. A terminal illness means you're going to die within six months, which in some cases is a mercy, but some of these neurodegenerative diseases take years of suffering before death occurs. So, I think we have to look to Canada to change our laws. And we've had the Oregon-type model as our model law now in six jurisdictions, five states in the district of Columbia, but that law has existed now for 20 years. To me, it's inadequate, and it's time to move forward and to look at what other countries are doing.  And then, there's a whole collection of ... No, that's not true. There are some doctors and some organizations, and I'm thinking in particular of Doctor Philip Nitschke, who started in Australia and was the first doctor in the world to give somebody euthanasia at their request, under a law. And that was back in 1996. He's now living in Holland, but he doesn't believe that we should try to change the law at all. He believes that people should be able to do it yourself, get what's necessary, whether it's drugs or mechanical devices or whatever, and do it ourselves because he knows that doctors are resistant to doing this and the law is very slow to change. That's one point of view. I don't totally agree with it. I think it's very helpful to have somebody there, somebody with an organization like Final Exit Network, to be there with you, and certainly a doctor to be there with you if you can find a cooperative doctor like Doctor Bob Uslander to see you through this, because it's not just a one moment decision, you swallow something and you're dead. It's a decision that should be decided over months with consultation with your loved ones. But that is very difficult and complicated in our country. Dr. Bob: All of this is complicated for sure, so I appreciate you sharing your passion, and your viewpoints on this. If it's okay, I want to make one slight correction to one of the things that you indicated, about the process for the End of Life Option Act in California, in that it doesn't actually require a psychiatrist or a mental health specialist to weigh in- Faye Girsh: No. You're right. Dr. Bob: Only if the attending physician or the consulting physician feel that there is a mental health issue or a psychiatric issue that is impacting the person's ability to make a decision. Faye Girsh: You're right. It doesn't happen very often actually- Dr. Bob: No. Faye Girsh: That a mental health professional is required to make the decision about competency. I think in Oregon has happened very few times. We have- Dr. Bob: Yeah, because a physician is- Faye Girsh: Better data from Oregon than we have from many places else. We have 20 years of data that the government of Oregon has collected. No, you're absolutely right about that, Bob. Dr. Bob: Again, thank you for sharing. We definitely have strides to make. I think we both are feeling grateful that we have come to a place in California where people do have more choice and more options, but we do still need to continue pushing forward. There are still some issues and problems with the existing law. It doesn't address the needs of the people with cognitive impairment and dementia, and those are really challenging situations. Faye Girsh: And doctors are not being educated about what this law entails. I have a new primary care doctor that I talked to the other day at Scripps, and she didn't know anything about it. There's never been even, not only a policy described by Scripps but no education about the law at all. She didn't know what to tell me. She's going to find out and tell me later. But this is not acceptable. This is a law now, and even though everything is voluntary, so it's completely voluntary on the part of the doctor, the patient, the hospice, the pharmacist. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't be educated about it, and that's what we try to do in Hemlock. I just gave a speech to bunch of elder law attorneys, and before that to an Episcopal convention. And the more people we can talk to the better, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the people who don't know what their rights are. And some hospitals have gone all out. Kaiser's very helpful in that respect, but my hospital, Scripps Clinic, they don't seem to know anything. It requires a massive educational effort, and it requires a little more cooperation and enthusiasm on the part of doctors and institutions, and definitely on the part of hospices. I think it's a disgrace that no hospice that we know of in this county will actually provide a doctor to do this for you. Many of them will refer to you, which is fine, but I think hospices should be able to assure a patient who comes for hospice care that if their suffering becomes too great, or they've had enough, that somebody will help them achieve a gentle death, which is what happens in Canada now, especially in Quebec, which has been the leader in this. The formally very Catholic province now, very progressive. And in Belgium and Holland. Their hospices will also provide peaceful death, voluntary euthanasia, but not ours. Dr. Bob: Not ours. Faye Girsh: And ours maintain that they can do everything in make dying fine for you and many of them can. I have no question about that. But for many people, there needs to be another option. Dr. Bob: And I always think about that when we hear from the palliative care and hospice folks, who are all very well-meaning, and compassionate, and they make it very clear that if the suffering becomes too great, then we can medicate people into unconsciousness. It's called palliative sedation, where you get medication so that you're no longer aware of your surroundings, no longer feeling pain, no longer feeling like you're struggling to breathe. And once you get medicated to that level, you will no longer be able to eat or drink, you won't have any nutrition, and eventually, you'll die of dehydration. And I understand that that is possible, and we for years have been doing that for or to patients. And my response to it is, if somebody has another option if somebody has the option of actually taking something on their own that will prevent that from being necessary, that they have the control, they get some of their power back, why wouldn't we want to make that available to them? Faye Girsh: I have debated that with so many hospice directors and doctors and nurses. I can't understand why the answer is not as simple as you make it. I mean, palliative sedation is very nice. I remember debating one hospice director, I guess she was, and she said, "No. Doctors should never help their patients die, never." But later she said, "When I see a patient in intractable suffering ..." well, she said pain, initially, but she was talking about suffering, " ... then, of course, I will administer something that will relieve them, and they won't wake up." Isn't that what I just said? No. Because the doctor has control over the decision, not the patient. Dr. Bob: Exactly. And I believe that's- Faye Girsh: And that's wrong. Dr. Bob: That's where the big divide is. The medical profession has so much ego, and we are unwilling to give control away. So instead of giving the patient and the family the ability to be empowered to have the option to act on their own, to make this determination, we need to do it for them or to them. We don't believe that people have the intelligence or the ability to make this determination of what's in their best interest. Faye Girsh: I'm not a great critic of the medical profession because I was married to one and I have given birth to one, and I like doctors very much in general. I've always liked the doctors I've had. It's some kind of paradox. I guess it's like politicians, you like the one you have, but then generally they're no good. I don't know what they need, education or something, and they need to be assured that they're protected from the law, because even though this law that we have, The End of Life Option Act, is clear that if a doctor does this, he or she is fully protected under the law. Somehow doctors don't believe it, and – again another generalization about what doctors think or do – they don't like to be bothered. There's a lot of paperwork ... you know this ... involved, there is not just, "Let's see. I write the prescription. Goodbye." You really should attend to your patients; you should find out what's going on with them. So they should be involved, and they don't want to be involved because that's not their job. I just saw a cartoon recently that said, "I'm a doctor, and I believe in preserving life at any cost." And the cartoons said, "Make sure you don't get that doctor." I mean, it's very nice. I do like people who are pro-life but up to a point. Up to the point where the patient says, "Okay. Death is not the worst option here. Staying alive under these conditions is worse, and I want to die gently and peacefully. And I don't want it to be a big secret, and I don't want to jeopardize anyone by helping me. Let's do it." And there's certainly more places in the world that are enlightened about this than we are. Dr. Bob: And I believe we're moving in the right direction as we both stated before. We have a lot of work to do, but we don't want to discount the fact that we are certainly in a better position than we were a couple years ago here in California. I try not to be critical of physicians. Many of my very good friends are physicians. I have spent a lot of time with some amazing physicians, and I think in general, doctors really do care a lot about people. They go into the profession because they're caring, and they want to help, and they want to do good. And it's not that they, in general, don't want to be bothered. They don't have the time; they're not allowed to have the kind of time that it takes to do this well. Many physicians are still very uncomfortable with the whole notion of death. When you go to medical school, and in your training, you would assume that there is no such thing as death because it's really never talked about. The textbooks don't mention anything about death. It's all about what we can do, how we can utilize the technology available to us, how we can do the right screening and prescribe people the- Faye Girsh: To prevent this from happening. Dr. Bob: So the training isn't there. A lot of people, I think, have to go through their own personal experience, they have to go through their own personal journey. Maybe have their own epiphany about what their role here is, and how they can best serve their patients. Faye Girsh: Bob, present company excluded, I don't think doctors need to be the agents of a peaceful death. In fact, when I was head of the National Hemlock Society, I started this program called Caring Friends where we educated our peers, older people like us ... I mean, I'm talking about the members of the Hemlock Society now, not you ... to work with people in their homes and tell them what means they could use to achieve a peaceful death, short of getting the drugs necessary. And there are many means. And of course one of them is not eating and drinking, but that's not the one we advocate. I'm talking now about the national organization called "Final Exit Network," which I was one of the founders, and that emanated from the Caring Friends program that I started at Hemlock. And we knew that doctors were not going to help, that we're not going to be able to get these drugs, which is the gold standard, but there are other ways. Now I'm using my Final Exit Network hat here–the guys at Final Exit Network teach people how to die peacefully, not using drugs, but using other means, which essentially lowers the oxygen in the brain, which causes a peaceful death but doesn't require drugs.   And there's an organization, a very loose organization, called Nutech, which has been working on this now for years, maybe 15 years, also started by Derek Humphry who started the Hemlock Society, New Techniques in Self-Deliverance. And I just went to a Nutech meeting in Toronto, where people from all over the world were there. It was a $5,000 reward for people who could come up with the best inventions so that people could do it themselves and die peacefully. So we're a long way from making an ideal situation, but there are situations that people can use, but that's not enough. I always gave the prototype of an 85-year-old woman. I'm about to be that. But an older person who's alone, who's sick, who may be partially blind, who is not mechanically inclined, a limit to what they can do to do this for themselves. So we do think that people should be there with them, and that's what they do in Final Exit Network. The Exit guide is present when people use these methods, and coaches them in how to use them. And we think we're covered under the First Amendment, but there's some litigation going on, which has challenged that assumption. Dr. Bob: Not surprising. Faye Girsh: No. But there are books, and videotapes, and YouTubes telling you how to end your life peacefully. And that certainly has its drawbacks because we don't believe that ... I mean, I am a psychologist by training, and I've worked with a lot of suicidal people, who with therapy have come to realize that suicide is not the answer to their problems. And it isn't. And there's a fine line between assisted dying and suicide, but generally, people who want help in dying would much prefer to live, but because of their disease or condition find that dying is preferable to living that way, whereas suicidal people don't want to live. They want to die. That's the difference. So if you make these methods available, then suicidal people have access to them, and that's arguable too. I mean, maybe it's better that they die peacefully than jump off bridges, as one of my very good friends did, or shoot themselves, as another very good friend did, and they could choose to die peacefully. That's a whole another discussion. Dr. Bob: Yeah. That's a whole another discussion. And I'm just thinking about, as I'm hearing you speak and discussing these topics that are certainly not part of the mainstream conversation that people are having, I'm just imagining that there are going to be people listening to this, who are squirming and feeling uncomfortable about these topics. And you know what? And that's okay. Faye Girsh: No doubt. Dr. Bob: These are things that we all really should explore and try to determine our own comfort level with them, and hopefully become more comfortable engaging in the entire spectrum of conversations about life and death. Faye Girsh: The Hemlock Society of San Diego, which has existed now for 30 years, is at a juncture of where to go next. We can continue having meetings and having speakers and everything else, but we do have to tackle these very naughty issues. And we are tackling them. Maybe we're the only organization in town if anywhere, that is doing it, but it does make people squirm. But we have a lot of people come to our meetings. They're all free. They're all open to the public, and they all deal with different issues about dying. To one meeting we had three veterinarians who talked about how they can help animals dying. It's so nice. Everybody was so jealous they wanted to grow two extra legs and a tail and be one of these animals that die in the arms of their loved one, peacefully and gently. A little shot in the paw and that's it. And then I've been a defender of Jack Kevorkian all these years. I thought, when he showed how his patient Tom Youk died, to 60 million viewers, that was a good thing, that we don't see people actually die and we don't even die on ICUs, or even in hospices. We don't see them junked out with drugs for days on end. We never see how people die except fictional, machine guns and that kind of thing. To see somebody get a lethal injection, keel over and he's dead, and how simple that was, and how desperately he longed for that relief from his ALS. This was the last patient that Doctor Kevorkian helped. And for that, Doctor Kevorkian spent eight years in prison doing a 10- to 25-year sentence that he got. For a doctor to come out and say this is what's important for doctors to do ... and the thing about Jack Kevorkian was there was nobody in the world practically, unless you were in the middle of a jungle somewhere, who hadn't heard of him, who didn't have an opinion about him, and who hadn't heard from his own patients why they wanted to die. And that kind of education thought, at that point, when Jack Kevorkian was I think in his seventh or eighth year of doing this, 75% of Americans believed that people should have assisted dying from a doctor. That's gone down considerably, because people don't hear about this, they don't engage in the dialogue, their doctors don't talk about it certainly, and it's up to us, the Hemlock Society of San Diego, and a few other organizations, to discuss this openly, so people know what the issues are. Dr. Bob: On that note, I think we're going to kind of wrap it up, but I do want to make sure that anybody who is interested in getting more information about anything that we've spoken about, that you've shared, has direction on how to get that information. I want to thank you for being a pioneer and for dedicating so much of your time and energy and money to this effort. There are many, many people who are indebted to you and have gratitude for the work that you and your tribe, your peers have done. Faye Girsh: Thank you very much, Bob. Dr. Bob: You're welcome. Faye Girsh: I'm getting to the point where a peaceful death is becoming more of an immediate issue, so I'm working extra hard, but I'm very glad you're around. Very comforting to me and many other people. Dr. Bob: And seeing you and being around you, you have vital energy, and I don't think it's going to be dissipating anytime soon. How do people learn more about the work that you're doing? Faye Girsh: Well, we have a website that's very informative, HemlockSocietySanDiego.org. And that will give you our phone number, which is 619-233-4418. We have, of course, an email address, which is ... I'm not even sure what it is. Dr. Bob: I'm sure they can get it off of the website, right? Faye Girsh: The website has all this information. And people are welcome to get on our email list to get a notification of our monthly meetings. And they're welcome to come, no charge. Although we will be having special meetings, I think now, for Hemlock members that we don't particularly want to share with the public, but that's another issue. Because we want people to be empowered the best way they can about ways to have a peaceful death. And not only for them, but we're having more young people come because their parents are dealing with this issue, or not dealing with it. Dr. Bob: And I've been to meetings, I've spoken at the meetings, and there's a wealth of information, and really some pretty incredible people there. I find that the level of intelligence and acceptance among the people who are really paying attention to these issues is very high. Faye Girsh: Yeah. And you've gotten to know some of them. Dr. Bob: I sure have. Faye Girsh: The ones that have had a peaceful death with your assistance. Maybe that's not the right word, but I don't know- Dr. Bob: That's fine. Faye Girsh: ... one has to be a very good- Dr. Bob: With my guidance. Faye Girsh: Guidance is a good word. Dr. Bob: And I've shared with our listeners some of the experiences that I've had and how powerful they've been. And the more people that I'm able to support and be with, the more strongly I feel about helping to spread the message and allow more people to understand how they can get this control, how can they be empowered when their life is coming to an end, and they're just like many of the people we've discussed. They're just not okay allowing this natural decline to decimate them further when they have a more peaceful, gentle option available. Faye Girsh: Thank you for doing this, Bob. And thank you for doing the podcast. I appreciate having an opportunity to talk about this. Dr. Bob: Yeah. Well, you're so articulate and passionate, and I look forward to our next conversation together. Faye Girsh: Absolutely. Dr. Bob: This is Doctor Bob Uslander, A Life and Death Conversation, until next time.

In the 18th episode of Conversation Instigation, Nick and Andrew talk about The Final Exit Network, a national organization of people who volunteer to sit with people when they are ending their lives.

The wait is over! Fran Schindler of the Final Exit Network joins the show to talk about her roles as an Exit Guide and what the network does for people with serious illness or disease. Fran describes it much better, but an Exit Guide’s job is to make sure that no one leaves this world alone. On the podcast we discuss what it is that the guides do and (most importantly) don’t do, giving people a friend to confide in while ending their life, the background process to be approved by the network, the preferred method of ending your life, legal trouble by the network and so much more. Fran also talks about her personal background and her own exit strategy. Such an enlightening episode. If you’d like to find out more about the Final Exit Network you can go to www.FinalExitNetwork.org.Thanks to all the listeners, if you have any questions or suggestions for a topic email IWTK at iwanttoknowpod@gmail.com.Don't forget to like IWTK at www.facebook.com/iwanttoknowshow, follow the show on twitter @iwanttoknowshow and visit www.iwanttoknowshow.com for more info on the guests, episodes, host and much more.

Summary of today's show: Scot Landry delivered a talk on the push for physician-assisted suicide in Massachusetts, addressing the historical, ethical, and practical considerations as voters in the Commonwealth are confronted by this matter of life and death in the election this fall. Listen to the show: Today's host(s): Scot Landry Links from today's show: Today's topics: Physician-assisted suicide 1st segment: Scot Landry mentioned that he recently delivered a talk, co-written by his brother Father Roger Landry, entitled “A Matter of Life and Death: Defeating the Push for Doctor-Prescribed Suicide: Historical, Ethical and Practical Considerations.” As part of the Archdiocese of Boston's Suicide is Always A Tragedy educational effort, Scot recorded this talk for use on The Good Catholic Life. Information from materials on and from the USCCB webpage on Physician Assisted Suicide is used in the talk. A matter of life and death: Defeating the Push for Doctor-Prescribed Suicide Historical, Ethical and Practical Considerations Suicide is ALWAYS a tragedy. It's never a dignified way to die. Most in our society readily understand that when someone is contemplating suicide at any age of life, he or she is normally suffering from a depression triggered by very real setbacks and serious disappointments and sees death as the only path to relief. The psychological professions know that people with such temptations need help to be freed not from life but from these suicidal thoughts through counseling, support, and when necessary, medication. The compassionate response to teenagers experiencing a crushing breakup, to unemployed fathers overwhelmed by pressure, to unhappy actresses feeling alone and abandoned, to middle-aged men devastated by scandalous revelations, is never to catalyze their suicide. Heroic police officers and firefighters climb bridges or go out on the ledges of skyscrapers for a reason. Dedicated volunteers staff Samaritan hotlines around the clock for a reason. This same type of care and attention needs to be given by a just and compassionate society to suffering seniors or others with serious illnesses. We're now living at a time in which this clear truth isn't seen by all and where some are advancing that suicide, rather than a tragedy, is actually a good, moral, rational and dignified choice. A year ago, if you were exiting the Callahan Tunnel in East Boston, you would have been confronted with a billboard paid for by the Final Exit Network, with white letters against a black background proclaiming, “Irreversible illness? Unbearable suffering? Die with Dignity.” To die with dignity, the billboard advanced, was to commit suicide with the help of a doctor. We would never tolerate a similar sign in Harvard Square or at any university: “Failing your courses? Unbearable heartbreak? Feel like the “one mistake” the Admissions Office made? End your collegiate career with dignity. Take your life.” We would know that preying on the emotionally down and vulnerable is never an act of compassion but what John Paul II called a perversion of mercy. Yet, in Massachusetts, we now have a Citizens Initiative Petition called the Death with Dignity Act that seems to be headed to the ballot this November that will legalize suicide for a class of citizens.This would involve the active cooperation of doctors prescribing lethal overdoses of drugs. Such attempts to legalize physician-assisted suicide have been introduced here in Massachusetts and been rebuffed in 1995, 1997, 2009 and 2010, but this year seems to be the best chance for proponents of euthanasia to achieve their objective of making Massachusetts the East Coast Oregon and the North American Netherlands. A recent poll by Public Policy Polling showed that support for the measure is ahead of the opposition 43-37 percent. So there is much work to do and much at stake. It's literally a matter of life and death. Whether we become active in the fight against doctor prescribed suicide may make the difference between lives being saved or tragically ended. So in this address, in the brief time we have, I'd like briefly to do several things.First, I'll describe the cultural background for this push for doctor prescribed death. Next, I'd like to touch on Church teaching, in order to strengthen us in our conviction as believers. Third, I'd like to focus on the Death with Dignity Act, and what the problems with it are even from an agnostic, commonsensical point of view, to equip us with arguments that will meet citizens where they're at, regardless of their belief in the dignity of every human life and that intrinsic evil of suicide. Lastly, I'd like to describe what we're being called to do now, as Catholics, as Harvard students and alumni, simply as truly compassionate human beings. II. The Cultural Context The push for physician-assisted suicide isn't coming out of a vacuum. It's a natural consequence of several factors that we need to be aware of if we are going to be able to persuade those who may unwisely be prone to support it. A great fear of suffering and death and a desire to control it – Pope John Paul II pointed this out in his 1995 encyclical The Gospel of Life (64): “The prevailing tendency is to value life only to the extent that it brings pleasure and well-being; suffering seems like an unbearable setback, something from which one must be freed at all costs. Death is considered “senseless” if it suddenly interrupts a life still open to a future of new and interesting experiences. But it becomes a “rightful liberation” once life is held to be no longer meaningful because it is filled with pain and inexorably doomed to even greater suffering. USCCB 2011 document “To Live Each Day with Dignity,” said: “Today, however, many people fear the dying process. They are afraid of being kept alive past life's natural limits by burdensome medical technology. They fear experiencing intolerable pain and suffering, losing control over bodily functions , or lingering with severe dementia. They worry about being abandoned or becoming a burden on others.” An exaggerated notion of personal autonomy or selfish individualism - There is a notion that no one can tell me what is good for me.. EV 64: When he denies or neglects his fundamental relationship to God, man thinks he is his own rule and measure, with the right to demand that society should guarantee him the ways and means of deciding what to do with his life in full and complete autonomy. It is especially people in the developed countries who act in this way. There's a distinction to be made between a healthy individualism and an exaggerated one that excludes any real sense of duties owed to family members, to society, to others. Almost all the justifications for legalizing physician assisted suicide focus primarily on the dying person who wants it. Its harmful impact on society and its values and institutions are ignored. Euthanasia, we have to remember, is not a private act of “self determination,” or a matter of managing one's personal affairs. AsCardinal O'Malley wrote back in 2000 in a pastoral letter on life as Bishop of the Diocese of Fall River, “It is a social decision: A decision that involves the person to be killed, the doctor doing the killing, and the complicity of a society that condones the killing.” If personal autonomy is the basis for permitting assisted suicide, why would a person only have personal autonomy when diagnosed (or misdiagnosed) as having a terminal condition? [ Rita Marker]If assisted suicide is proclaimed by force of law to be a good solution to the problem of human suffering, then isn't it both unreasonable and cruel to limit it to the dying? A legal positivism that believes that there are no universal moral norms, but just the values we impose, either by courts and legislatures or ballot petitions - In yesteryear, the debate over euthanasia would take place within the context of moral and religious coordinates. No longer. There ceases to be common reference to anything higher than the debates that occur in the “secular cathedrals” of courthouses and legislatures. Believers have often abetted this secularization of discourse by allowing secularists to drive religious and moral values from normal discourse so that the public square becomes “naked” and our sacred scripture becomes court opinions and our prophets become the talking heads in the media. Materialism and consumerism - Our society has lost a sense of the sacred, of mystery of the soul. The body is looked at just as a machine and human life as a whole has become two dimensional. This abets the push for euthanasia because ideas that there is meaning in suffering, even in death, seems like outdated ideas and that we should treat these fundamental human realities of suffering and death the way we do cars, or pets, or other things that begin to break down. We dispose of them once their usefulness is no longer apparent. An anthropology based on scientific and mechanistic rationalism - Our scientific and medical progress, among other things in being able to produce life in test tubes and other practices, has led us to believe that if we can “create” life we should be able to manipulate it and end it, because life has lost its sense of mystery and its connection to a creator beyond us. We become what the raw material of human life becomes with time. We no longer are seen to be special in comparison with animals or robots. If we can euthanize our suffering pets, we should, so says Princeton's Peter Singer, be able to euthanize human beings and allow them to end their own lives. A misunderstanding of human dignity - American political scientist Diana Schaub says “we no longer agree about the content of dignity, because we no longer share … a ‘vision of what it means to be human'.” Intrinsic dignity means one has dignity simply because one is human. This is a status model — dignity comes simply with being a human being. It's an example of “recognition respect” — respect is contingent on what one is, a human being. Extrinsic dignity means that whether one has dignity depends on the circumstances in which one finds oneself and whether others see one as having dignity. Dignity is conferred and can be taken away. Dignity depends on what one can or cannot do. These two definitions provide very different answers as to what respect for human dignity requires in relation to disabled or dying people, and that matters in relation to euthanasia.Under an inherent dignity approach, dying people are still human beings, therefore they have dignity. Under an extrinsic dignity approach, dying people are no longer human doings — that is, they are seen as having lost their dignity — and eliminating them through euthanasia is perceived as remedying their undignified state. Pro-euthanasia advocates argue that below a certain quality of life a person loses all dignity. They believe that respect for dignity requires the absence of suffering, whether from disability or terminal illness, and, as well, respect for autonomy and self-determination. Consequently, they argue that respect for the dignity of suffering people who request euthanasia requires it to be an option We need to be aware of these aspects of our culture because we're really going to be able to change hearts and minds long term, to re-evangelize the culture of death with a culture of life, only when we're able to get to the roots of the ideas that find euthanasia not only acceptable, not only worthwhile, but in some cases obligatory. The moral worth of our society hinges on how we respond to these false ideas and fears. As the US Bishops wrote in To Live Each Day with Dignity: “Our society can be judged by how we respond to these fears. A caring community devotes more attention, not less, to members facing the most vulnerable times in their lives. When people are tempted to see their own lives as diminished in value or meaning, they most need the love and assistance of others to assure them of their inherent worth.” III. The teaching of the Catholic Church I presume most people listening to this presentation would be aware of the Church's teaching with regard to euthanasia and doctor prescribed death.We believe that human life is the most basic gift of a loving God, a gift over which we have stewardship not absolute dominion. As responsible stewards of life, we must never directly intend to cause our own death or that of anyone else. Euthanasia and assisted suicide, for that reason , are always gravely wrong. The fifth commandment applies to our actions toward ourselves and to others. For this reason, Blessed Pope John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae : To concur with the intention of another person to commit suicide and to help in carrying it out through so-called “assisted suicide” means to cooperate in, and at times to be the actual perpetrator of, an injustice which can never be excused, even if it is requested. In a remarkably relevant passageSaint Augustine writes that “it is never licit to kill another: even if he should wish it, indeed if he request it because, hanging between life and death, he begs for help in freeing the soul struggling against the bonds of the body and longing to be released; nor is it licit even when a sick person is no longer able to live”. Even when not motivated by a selfish refusal to be burdened with the life of someone who is suffering, euthanasia must be called a , and indeed a disturbing “perversion” of mercy. True “compassion” leads to sharing another's pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.Moreover, the act of euthanasia appears all the more perverse if it is carried out by those, like relatives, who are supposed to treat a family member with patience and love, or by those, such as doctors, who by virtue of their specific profession are supposed to care for the sick person even in the most painful terminal stages” (66). The CatholicChurch regularly teaches about importance of palliative care and emphasizes that we don't teach that we have to preserve life by all means no matter what the circumstances.Palliative care is a holistic approach to terminal illness and the dying process. It seeks to address the whole spectrum of issues that confront a person with a terminal diagnosis through information, high quality care and pain relief, dealing with the emotions, dispelling fear, offering spiritual support if required and including the family in every aspect of the patient's care. In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II wrote that “Euthanasia must be distinguished from the decision to forego so-called “aggressive medical treatment”, in other words, medical procedures which no longer correspond to the real situation of the patient, either because they are by now disproportionate to any expected results or because they impose an excessive burden on the patient and his family. In such situations, when death is clearly imminent and inevitable, one can in conscience “refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted” The US Bishops in To Live Each Day with Dignity stated that “Respect for life does not demand that we attempt to prolong life by using medical treatments that are ineffective or unduly burdensome. Nor does it mean we should deprive suffering patients of needed pain medications out of a misplaced or exaggerated fear that they might have the side effect of shortening life. The risk of such an effect is extremely low when pain medication is adjusted to a patient's level of pain, with the laudable purpose of simply addressing that pain (CCC, no. 2279). In fact, severe pain can shorten life, while effective palliative care can enhance the length as well as the quality of a person's life. It can even alleviate the fears and problems that lead some patients to the desperation of considering suicide. Effective palliative care also allows patients to devote their attention to the unfinished business of their lives, to arrive at a sense of peace with God, with loved ones, and with themselves.” This is the “infinitely better way” to care for the needs of people with serious illnesses,” what Blessed John Paul II called “the way of love and mercy.” These considerations are very important in terms of forming ourselves as Catholics, and they help all of us see more clearly and with greater confidence, thanks the help of Revelation, that doctor prescribed death is always wrong. These arguments won't necessarily work ad extra, in terms of the persuasion of the public as a whole, but they will be far more direct and persuasive to those who believe that they believe that God exists, that he speaks to us through Sacred Scripture and the Church he founded, to guide us to the truth in faith and morals. IV. National and International Survey of Doctor Prescribed Death Before we look at the situation in Massachusetts, I'd like to do a quick survey of the situation in our country and across the globe. I do this because euthanasia proponents sometimes give the impression that the advent of physician assisted suicide is inevitable. It's not. There is, in fact, the total reverse and negation of a “domino effect.” The state of Oregon made assisted suicide a medical treatment in 1994 and three years later legalized it outright. In 2008, Washington did the same. That same year courts in Montana said that patients have the right to self-administer a lethal dose of medication as prescribed by a physician and determined that the doctor would not face legal punishment for doing so. But in the time since 1994 in Oregon, there have been 124 proposals in 25 states. All that are not currently pending were either defeated, tabled for the session, withdrawn by sponsors, or languished with no action taken. Michigan defeated a Kevorkian led referendum in 1998. Maine defeated a referendum for physician assisted suicide in 2000 (51-49). California defeated the Compassionate Choices Acts in 2005. New Hampshire defeated an assisted suicide bill 242-113 in January 2010. Later that year, Hawaii's health committee unanimously rebuffed it. Earlier this month, the State of Vermont defeated it 18-11 in the Senate. The vast majority of times it has come up in states across the nation, it has been defeated. Doctor physician suicide remains an explicit crime in 44 states. The same thing has happened internationally. After the Netherlands legalized it, The Scottish Parliament overwhelming defeated an attempt to give “end of life Assistance” 85-16 in 2010. In the same year, the Canadian parliament defeated a bill that would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide by a vote of 228 to 59. In Western Australia, a major effort was launched to pass a euthanasia bill, and it was struck down 24-11 in September 2010.Since the beginning of 2010 five countries have defeated efforts to pass more radical laws enabling not just assisted suicide but Netherlands-style euthanasia, which allows medical professionals to kill very ill or depressed patients. The bottom line is that we should have hope. If euthanasia can be defeated in California, in Vermont, in Britain, in Canada, it can be defeated here. The reason is because fundamentally those fighting against euthanasia are not primarily conservatives or, even more restricted, religious conservatives. Most current opposition coalitions include many persons and organizations whose opposition is based on progressive politics, especially disability rights groups and medical associations . V. The Massachusetts Death with Dignity Act Let's turn now to the Death with Dignity Act that Attorney General Martha Coakley certified as a citizens initiative petition on September 7, 2011.Presently assisting suicide currently is a common law crime in MassachusettsThis petition allows a Massachusetts adult resident, who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness that will likely result in death within six months, to request and receive a prescription for a lethal drug to end his or her life. If passed, the petition would legalize physician-assisted suicide. Two physicians will need to determine the terminal diagnosis, the mental state of the patient, and that the patient is acting voluntarily. The patient must make two oral requests within no fewer than fifteen days of one another. A written request is also required with a minimum of forty-eight hours between the written request and the writing of a prescription for the lethal drug. Let's begin parsing what this is all about.First I'll describe technical issues with the actual petition and then discuss some of the larger issues involved. There are at least 5 technical issues with the actual petition. First, we see first the use of euphemisms to mask what's really involved. The US Bishops have stated that proponents … avoid terms such as “assisting suicide” and instead use euphemisms such as “aid in dying.” They note that The Hemlock Society has changed its name to “Compassion and Choices.” They state, “Plain speaking is needed to strip away this veneer and uncover what is at stake, for this agenda promotes neither free choice nor compassion.” Proponents scrupulously avoid the term suicide, instead opting for “compassion,” “dying with dignity” “humane” and “end-of-life care.” It's important for us to keep the term suicide in the forefront, because people, especially in our culture, recognize that suicide is wrong. A vote for doctor prescribed suicide is a vote for suicide. Cardinal O'Malley said in a powerful homily, “We hope that the citizens of the commonwealth will not be seduced by the language: dignity, mercy and compassion which are used to disguise the sheer brutality of helping some kill themselves.… We are our brother's keeper and our sister's helper. Cain who forgot he was his brother's keeper ended up becoming his executioner. “Thou shall not kill” is God's law and it is written in our hearts by our Creator.” Second, the petition uses a vague definition of terminally ill. There are many definitions for the word “terminal.” For example, when he spoke to the National Press Club in 1992, Jack Kevorkian said that a terminal illness was “any disease that curtails life even for a day.” The co-founder of the Hemlock Society often refers to “terminal old age.” Some laws define “terminal” condition as one from which death will occur in a “relatively short time.” Others state that “terminal” means that death is expected within six months or less, WITHOUT MEDICAL CARE. Even where a specific life expectancy (like six months) is referred to, medical experts acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to predict the life expectancy of a particular patient. Some people diagnosed as terminally ill don't die for years, if at all, from the diagnosed condition. Increasingly, however, euthanasia activists have dropped references to terminal illness, replacing them with such phrases as “hopelessly ill,” “desperately ill,” “incurably ill,” “hopeless condition,” and “meaningless life.” But it is extremely common for medical prognoses of a short life expectancy to be wrong. Studies indicate that only cancer patients show a predictable decline, and even then, it is only in the last few weeks of life. With every disease other than cancer, prediction is unreliable. Prognoses are based on statistical averages, which are nearly useless in determining what will happen to an individual patient. Thus, the potential reach of assisted suicide is extremely broad and could include many people who may be mistakenly diagnosed as terminal but who have many meaningful years of life ahead The third technical issue with the petition is that there is no mandatory psychiatric evaluation to determine the level of depression or a plan to handle depression. The petition only requires a determination that the person does not have impaired judgment (Section 6). In To Live Each Day with Dignity, the US Bishops remarked, “Medical professionals recognize that people who take their own lives commonly suffer from a mental illness, such as clinical depression. Suicidal desires may be triggered by very real setbacks and serious disappointments in life. However, suicidal persons become increasingly incapable of appreciating options for dealing with these problems, suffering from a kind of tunnel vision that sees relief only in death.” It is never rational to choose suicide. In 2010, the Oregon Public Health Division found that the leading reasons people gave for asking for death were loss of autonomy (94%), decreasing ability to participate in activities that make life enjoyable (94%), and loss of dignity (79%). It is not pain but fear that drives people to suicide. Fear of dependence. Fear of “being a burden.” Depression is one of the main factors that drives one to suicide. it's not pain. The latest figures from Oregon show that while 95% of patients requested euthanasia or assisted suicide for “loss of autonomy” and 92% for “loss of dignity” only 5% (3 people) requested it for “inadequate pain control.” It should be noted here that hospice care is not as well developed in Oregon as in other US states. The two professional associations representing oncologists in California wrote: It is critical to recognize that, contrary to belief, most patients requesting physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia do not do so because of physical symptoms such as pain or nausea. Rather, depression, psychological distress, and fear of loss of control are identified as the key end of life issues. This has been borne out in numerous studies and reports. For example, … a survey of 100 terminally ill cancer patients in a palliative care program in Edmonton, Canada,. .. showed no correlation between physical symptoms of pain, nausea, or loss of appetite and the patient's expressed desire or support for euthanasia or PAS. Moreover, in the same study, patients demonstrating suicidal thoughts were much more likely to be suffering from depression or anxiety, but not bodily symptoms such as pain. Fourth – there are multiple problems with criteria for witnesses and reporting structures. Witnesses can be strangers or those who seek to benefit from the death. Can be friends of the heirs. Under this Initiative [11-12], someone who would benefit financially from the patient's death could serve as a witness and claim that the patient is mentally fit and eligible to request assisted suicide. The Initiative [11-12] requires that there be two witnesses to the patient's written request for doctor-prescribed suicide. One of those witnesses shall not be a relative or entitled to any portion of the person's estate upon death. However,this provides little protection since it permits one witness to be a relative or someone who IS entitled to the patient's estate. The second witness could be the best friend of the first witness and no one would know. Victims of elder abuse and domestic abuse are unlikely to share their fears with outsiders or to reveal that they are being pressured by family members to “choose” assisted suicide. The US Bishops stated last year that “in fact, such laws have generally taken great care to AVOID real scrutiny of the process for doctor-prescribed death—or any inquiry into WHOSE choice is served. In Oregon and Washington, for example, all reporting is done solely by the physician who prescribes lethal drugs. Once they are prescribed, the law requires no assessment of whether patients are acting freely, whether they are influenced by those who have financial or other motives for ensuring their death, or even whether others actually administer the drugs. Here the line between assisted suicide and homicide becomes blurred.”In Oregon, in only 28 percent of the patient deaths has the prescribing physician been present at the time of patient ingestion of the lethal dose, and in 19 percent of the cases, no health care provider has been in attendance. The fifth technical problem is that the initiative doesn't do enough limit the possibility of elder abuse or a lack of consent. Criminologist Jeremy Prichard doubts that many people in the community will be able to give full and voluntary consent to ending their lives. He contends that the growing prevalence of elder abuse suggests that aged people could easily be manipulated.Most elder abuse is at the hand of a relative. We must recognize that the prospect of euthanasia and assisted suicide becoming law in this country could effectively be aiding and abetting elder abuse with extremely grave consequences.It's not hard to imagine that a relative who has been systematically abusing an elder emotionally and financially could see euthanasia as the final (and most profitable) card to play for personal gain.It's not hard to imagine someone who has been emotionally abused over time succumbing to the suggestion that they ‘do the right thing' once their frailty and ailments reach a certain point. VI. Larger issues involved Now I'd like to discuss 8 larger issues that are involved .There's a false compassion involved in this initiative.It's an explicit promotion of suicide. It will lead to a weakening of palliative care. It creates tremendous pressure on those who are ill and on their caregivers. It provides financial incentives toward euthanasia. It begins a slippery slope to many other possible abuses and evils. It creates legitimate fears in the disabled community. And It introduces a change in the nature of medical care. First, it's a false compassion – The US Bishops state that “the idea that assisting a suicide shows compassion and eliminates suffering is equally misguided. It eliminates the person, and results in suffering for those left behind—grieving families and friends, and other vulnerable people who may be influenced by this event to see death as an escape. The sufferings caused by chronic or terminal illness are often severe. They cry out for our compassion, a word whose root meaning is to “suffer with” another person. True compassion alleviates suffering while maintaining solidarity with those who suffer. It does not put lethal drugs in their hands and abandon them to their suicidal impulses, or to the self-serving motives of others who may want them dead. It helps vulnerable people with their problems instead of treating them as the problem.” Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote, “True ‘compassion' leads to sharing another's pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.” Second - it's an explicit governmental promotion of suicide - Once government begins to say under certain circumstances suicide is not only permitted, but a public good, then others in situations — that are by no means severe — start to take their own lives.We've seen this in Oregon. In the first decade after Oregon legalized physician assisted suicide, the suicide rate - which had been declining - rose to 35 percent above the national average.And That 35 percent does NOT include doctor-assisted deaths in Oregon. By rescinding legal protection for the lives of one group of people, the government implicitly communicates the message—before anyone signs a form to accept this alleged benefit—that they may be better off dead. If these persons say they want to die, others may be tempted to regard this not as a call for help but as the reasonable response to what they agree is a meaningless life. Those who choose to live may then be seen as selfish or irrational, as a needless burden on others, and even be encouraged to view themselves that way Third - it will lead to a weakening of palliative care – The push for doctor prescribed death is a movement to kill not the pain a person suffers but the person with the pain. Euthanasia advocates have pushed to confuse everyone on the palliative care issue: They have conflated or fused palliative care — the medical alleviation of pain and other distressing symptoms of serious illness — with intentionally ending the life of the patient.The pro-euthanasia lobby has deliberately confused pain relief treatment and euthanasia in order to promote their cause. Their argument is that necessary pain relief treatment that could shorten life is euthanasia; we are already giving such treatment and the vast majority of people agree we should do so; therefore, we are practicing euthanasia with the approval of the majority so we should come out of the medical closet and legalize euthanasia. Indeed, they argue, doing so is just a small incremental step along a path we have already taken. The US Bishops in To Leave Each Day with Dignity wrote, “Even health care providers' ability and willingness to provide palliative care such as effective pain management can be undermined by authorizing assisted suicide. Studies indicate that untreated pain among terminally ill patients may increase and development of hospice care can stagnate after assisted suicide is legalized. Government programs and private insurers may even limit support for care that could extend life, while emphasizing the “cost-effective” solution of a doctor-prescribed death. The reason for such trends is easy to understand. Why would medical professionals spend a lifetime developing the empathy and skills needed for the difficult but important task of providing optimum care, once society has authorized a “solution” for suffering patients that requires no skill at all? Once some people have become candidates for the inexpensive treatment of assisted suicide, public and private payers for health coverage also find it easy to direct life-affirming resources elsewhere.” Fourth - it creates tremendous pressure on those who are ill and on their care givers - If voluntary euthanasia is introduced, every dying person capable of doing so would have to decide not just whether or not his own pain had become too much to bear, but whether or not the emotional, physical and financial burden was becoming too much for relatives and friends to bear. What are the dying to do when their children and grandchildren have to travel long distances, endure enormous emotional strain and go through wearing physical fatigue to be with them during an awkwardly long and unpredictable “dying period”? What are the poor, vulnerable dying to do when they are made to feel that their continued existence is an intolerable public burden? In cases where the dying elderly are not in a position to give formal consent to their own death, those legally vested with the right to make this decision on their behalf can never be sure that they acted out of the right motives. (In the worst case, one can wonder whether they were motivated by their dying relative's emotional strain or by THEIR OWN, by the interests of the patient or by the prospect of securing an inheritance sooner rather than later?, and so on). The legalization of euthanasia would put almost “humanly impossible” demands on the dying and their relatives, especially if they are poor. Where voluntary euthanasia is illegal, the timing and extent of medical intervention in the lives of dying patients is more a matter of “professional judgment” than of “personal choice” and this means that the health professions are able to protect the poor and vulnerable from pressures of this kind. Fifth – it creates financial incentives for euthanasia – In an era of cost control and managed care, patients with lingering illnesses may be branded an economic liability, and decisions to encourage physician assisted suicide may be driven by cost.I ask you, is it reasonable to assume that some government bureaucrats or some bottom-line-driven managed care decision makers would be motivated to encourage less costly assisted suicide pill prescriptions over more expensive longer-term treatments?The cost of the lethal medication generally used for assisted suicide is about $300, far cheaper than the cost of treatment for most long-term medical conditions. Many common-sense adults have already concluded that assisted suicide is a deadly mix with our challenged health care system, in which financial pressures already play far too great a role in many health care decisions. The U.S. Solicitor General in the Clinton Administration, Walter Dellinger, warned in urging the Supreme Court to uphold laws against assisted suicide: “The least costly treatment for any illness is lethal medication.” Patients in Oregon have already encountered that reality. In May 2008, 64-year-old retired school bus driver Barbara Wagner received bad news from her doctor. Her cancer had returned. Then she got some good news. Her doctor gave her a prescription for medication that he said would likely slow the cancer's growth and extend her life. It didn't take long for her hopes to be dashed.She was notified by letter that the Oregon Health Plan wouldn't cover the prescribed cancer drug. It also informed her that, although it wouldn't cover the prescription, it would cover all costs for her assisted suicide. Wagner said she told the OHP, “Who do you guys think you are? You know, to say that you'll pay for my dying, but you won't pay to help me possibly live longer?”Wagner's case was not isolated. Other patients received similar letters. Sixth - clearly this initiative would launch the Commonwealth down the slippery slope to involuntary euthanasia and other evils. The “slippery slope” argument, a complex legal and philosophical concept, generally asserts that one exception to a law is followed by more exceptions until a point is reached that would initially have been unacceptable We've seen the path the slippery slope has taken in Belgium and the Netherlands. In 30 years, the Netherlands has moved from euthanasia of people who are terminally ill, to euthanasia of those who are chronically ill; from euthanasia for physical illness, to euthanasia for mental illness; from euthanasia for mental illness, to euthanasia for psychological distress or mental suffering—and now to euthanasia simply if a person is over the age of 70 and “tired of living.” Dutch euthanasia protocols have also moved from conscious patients providing explicit consent, to unconscious patients unable to provide consent. Denying euthanasia or PAS in the Netherlands is now considered a form of discrimination against people with chronic illness, whether the illness be physical or psychological, because those people will be forced to “suffer”longer than those who are terminally ill. Non-voluntary euthanasia is now being justified by appealing to the social duty of citizens and the ethical pillar of caring for others [beneficence]. In the Netherlands, euthanasia has moved from being a measure of last resort to being one of early intervention. Belgium has followed suit, and troubling evidence is emerging from Oregon specifically with respect to the protection of people with depression and the objectivity of the process For many years Dutch courts have allowed physicians to practice euthanasia and assisted suicide with impunity, supposedly only in cases where desperately ill patients have unbearable suffering. However, Dutch policy and practice have expanded to allow the killing of people with disabilities or even physically healthy people with psychological distress; thousands of patients, including newborn children with disabilities, have been killed by their doctors without their request. The Dutch example teaches us that the “slippery slope” is very real.A recent study found that in the Flemish part of Belgium, 66 of 208 cases of “euthanasia” (32%) occurred in the absence of request or consent. The reasons for not discussing the decision to end the person's life and not obtaining consent were that patients were comatose (70% of cases) or had dementia (21% of cases). In 17% of cases, the physicians proceeded without consent because they felt that euthanasia was “clearly in the patient's best interest” and, in 8% of cases, that discussing it with the patient would have been harmful to that patient. Those findings accord with the results of a previous study in which 25 of 1644 non-sudden deaths had been the result of euthanasia without explicit consent The US Bishops Conference speaks about this: “Taking life in the name of compassion also invites a slippery slope toward ending the lives of people with non-terminal conditions. Dutch doctors, who once limited euthanasia to terminally ill patients, now provide lethal drugs to people with chronic illnesses and disabilities, mental illness, and even melancholy. Once they convinced themselves that ending a short life can be an act of compassion, it was morbidly logical to conclude that ending a longer life may show even more compassion. Psychologically, as well, the physician who has begun to offer death as a solution for some illnesses is tempted to view it as the answer for an ever-broader range of problems. This agenda actually risks adding to the suffering of seriously ill people. Their worst suffering is often not physical pain, which can be alleviated with competent medical care, but feelings of isolation and hopelessness. The realization that others—or society as a whole—may see their death as an acceptable or even desirable solution to their problems can only magnify this kind of suffering.” There is a moral trickle-down effect. First, suicide is promoted as a virtue. Then follows mercy killing of the terminally ill. From there, it's a hop, skip and a jump to killing people who aren't perceived to have a good “quality” of life, perhaps with the prospect of organ harvesting thrown in as a plum to society. Seventh – the disabled community is rightly concerned about this initiative – A Once concerns about the perception of one's quality of life come to the forefront, disabled advocates anticipate that the disabled will be among the first to be targeted under an anthropology focused on doing rather than being. These advocates tell us that many people with disabilities have long experience of prejudicial attitudes on the part of able-bodied people, including physicians, who assume they would “rather be dead than disabled.” Such prejudices could easily lead families, physicians and society to encourage death for people who are depressed and emotionally vulnerable as they adjust to life with a serious illness or disability. Although the debate about assisted suicide is often portrayed as part of the culture war—with typical left-right, pro-con politics—the largest number of witnesses at the most recent hearing on Beacon Hill were 10 disability-rights advocates who oppose the initiative. According to the National Council on Disability: “As the experience in the Netherlands demonstrates there is little doubt that legalizing assisted suicide generates strong pressures upon individuals and families to utilize the option, and leads very quickly to coercion and involuntary euthanasia.”This is a fear that many people living with a disability and their families express over the idea of euthanasia.They fear that misunderstandings and false compassion could result in them being considered ‘better off dead'; devalued and perhaps even killed. They also fear being treated as second class citizens in respect to their medical care. A policy of euthanasia will inevitably lead to establishing social standards of acceptable life. When “quality life” is more important than life itself, the mentally ill, the disabled, the depressed, and those who cannot defend themselves will be at risk of being eliminated. The prohibitions against both euthanasia and assisted suicide treat all citizens equally. Making exceptions for the hard cases while advantaging the very few, risks placing far more people at a decided risk of disadvantage. We would be implicitly suggesting that the lives of the sick or disabled are less worthy of the protection of the law than others. Will these ‘vulnerable groups' be heard In Massachusetts, the disability advocates call their opposition group “Second Thoughts.” They say that assisted suicide may sound like a good idea at first, but on second thought the risks of mistake, coercion and abuse are too great. Cardinal Seán O'Malley summed up this thought in a homily he delivered in September of 2011.“By rescinding the legal protection for the lives of a category of people, the government sends a message that some persons are better off dead. This biased judgment about the diminished value of life for someone with a serious illness or disability is fueled by the excessively high premium our culture places on productivity and autonomy which tends to discount the lives of those who have a disability or who are suffering or dependent on others. If these people claim they want to die, others might be tempted to regard this not as a call for help, but as a reasonable response to what they agree is a meaningless life. Those who choose to live may then be viewed as selfish or irrational, as a needless burden on others, and might even be encouraged to see themselves in that way. Many people with a disability who struggle for their genuine rights to adequate health care, housing and so forth, are understandably suspicious when the freedom society most eagerly offers them is the freedom to take their lives.” The eighth large issue is that this initiative if passed would bring about a massive change in the nature of medical care – The American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Nurses Association and the Massachusetts Medical Society all oppose doctor-prescribed suicide and for good reason, because it changes the nature of medical care and corrupts the medical profession.The Hippocratic oath states: “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan.”The American Medical Association holds that “physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer.” Once we allow doctors to start to kill patients with terminal illnesses, the meaning of the medical profession changes, from one that seeks always to save lives, to one in which it is possible to end them. Once that occurs, then it's a small step to allowing them to assist non-terminal patients in taking their lives and another to putting pressure on those who are in terminal illnesses to do family members and society a “favor” by ending their lives so that medical resources can be spent elsewhere. We've seen the consequences in terms of the doctor-patient relationship. In Holland, reports have been published documenting the sad fact that elderly patients, out of fear of euthanasia, refuse hospitalization and even avoid consulting doctors, because doctors and nurses become potential destroyers of life, rather than defenders. They become executioners. There would also be a fundamental change in the way doctors are formed. A fundamental value and attitude that we want to reinforce in medical students, interns and residents, and in nurses, is an absolute repugnance to killing patients. It would be very difficult to communicate to future physicians and nurses such a repugnance in the context of legalized doctor prescribed death. VII. Our mission in response to this challenge With regard to the citizens initiative petition, we need to know some facts. It's still in the “second quarter of the game,” but we are slightly behind and therefore we must work harder and better, both on offense and defense. The recent poll by Public Policy Polling showing that 43 percent are in favor of the petition at the present, and 37 percent are against. But we saw some breakdowns that will teach us particular areas that we can emphasize: There is a gender difference. Men were in favor of 48-34 percent.Women were opposed 41-38.Therefore we particularly need to work on men to become real protectors of the vulnerable and to accentuate woman's nature compassion. There are also generational differences. 65 and older were opposed with 44 percent against it. Those 46-65 were the most in favor, with 49 percent supporting the bill. It's clear that our seniors will be opposed if the specter of people making the decision for them is brought to them.We need to help the care giver generation to recognize there's a better way, a way of returning love for the love received, of the availability of good palliative care in hospices. The larger issue of how we should be getting involved was brought out by the US Bishops in To Live Each Day with Dignity. “Catholics should be leaders in the effort to defend and uphold the principle that each of us has a right to live with dignity through every day of our lives. As disciples of one who is Lord of the living, we need to be messengers of the Gospel of Life. We should join with other concerned Americans, including disability rights advocates, charitable organizations, and members of the healing professions, to stand for the dignity of people with serious illnesses and disabilities and promote life-affirming solutions for their problems and hardships. We should ensure that the families of people with chronic or terminal illness will advocate for the rights of their loved ones, and will never feel they have been left alone in caring for their needs. The claim that the “quick fix” of an overdose of drugs can substitute for these efforts is an affront to patients, caregivers and the ideals of medicine. When we grow old or sick and we are tempted to lose heart, we should be surrounded by people who ask “How can we help?” We deserve to grow old in a society that views our cares and needs with a compassion grounded in respect, offering genuine support in our final days. The choices we make together now will decide whether this is the kind of caring society we will leave to future generations. We can help build a world in which love is stronger than death.” This initiative petition is a time in which all citizens of the Commonwealth have the chance to choose the path of Cain and Kevorkian or the path of the Good Samaritan. It's the path of the executioner or of the truly compassionate care-giver, the life-affirming hospice nurse, the 24-hour operator at suicide prevention hotlines, and the heroic firefighter or police officer who climbs bridges, risking his life to save those who are contemplating ending their own. The path of the true brother's keeper will also be shown in the educational work of those who begin anew to educate others about the dignity of every human life and persuade legislators and fellow citizens to rise up to defeat soundly this evil initiative. It's a matter of life or death.

Today's host(s): Scot Landry and Susan Abbott Today's guest(s): Gregory Tracy, Managing Editor of the Pilot Newspaper. Today's topics:Cardinal Seán and Pope Benedict deliver messages to the pilgrims in Madrid for World Youth Day, a petition in support of euthanasia is submitted to the Massachusetts Attorney General, and Fr. Rich Erikson reflects on closing his term as the Vicar General. Summary of today's show: Scot, Susan, and Greg discuss messages at World Youth Day and local and international Catholic news. 1st segment: Scot welcomed Susan back to the studio, as it's been a while since they co-hosted a show together. Susan explained that, contrary to what we said on the show two weeks ago, she was not on vacation - she was at a conference in Springfield with other catechists. Reporter John Allen was the keynote speaker for the event. Susan said she was also at CatholicTV last week talking about Catechetical Sunday, which is coming up on September 18th. Susan explained that John Allen spoke about his most recent book, The Future Church, about ten trends he sees, and said the book is hopeful work from an objective writer. She said one of the biggest trends Allen identifies is that the Church is no longer a Church of East and West but of North and South. Scot recalled a column where Allen shared his themes, and said he agreed with Allen's analysis of a shift in our Church to South America and Africa. 2nd segment: Scot welcomed Greg Tracy from the Pilot newspaper to the program, and talked about the Pilot's front page story this week - a picture of the massive crowds gathered in Madrid. Greg lamented that the Pilot is only a weekly newspaper and couldn't get pictures of the Pope's arrival today in time for printing, but promised a full issue next week dedicated to coverage of the Pope's time spent in Madrid over the next few days. Scot said that even though Pope Benedict has only been on the ground for a few hours, he's already had the chance to give three significant addresses - the first almost as a head of state to diplomats and the King and Queen of Spain, the second when he first greeted the pilgrims, and the third after a reading from Scripture in a homily to the youth. Scot read an excerpt from the homily: Dear young people, listen closely to the words of the Lord, that they may be for you “spirit and life” (Jn 6:63), roots which nourish your being, a rule of life which likens us – poor in spirit, thirsting for justice, merciful, pure in heart, lovers of peace – to the person of Christ. Listen regularly every day as if he were the one friend who does not deceive, the one with whom we wish to share the path of life. Of course, you know that when we do not walk beside Christ our guide, we get lost on other paths, like the path of our blind and selfish impulses, or the path of flattering but self-serving suggestions, deceiving and fickle, which leave emptiness and frustration in their wake. Scot highlighted that Pope Benedict is addressing a common theme - that youth have pressure from many sources to conform to values that aren't of the Catholic faith. Susan said she was struck by the sometimes poetic language that the Pope used. Susan said she also enjoyed a piece of the previous paragraph talking about words, where the Holy Father said that "...there are words which serve only to amuse, as fleeting as an empty breeze; others, to an extent, inform us; those of Jesus, on the other hand, must reach our hearts, take root and bloom there all our lives." Scot said that the Holy Father used the theme of World Youth Day and themes from last month's Gospel readings about fertile soil to encourage the youth to "grow in divine grace." Greg said it was interesting to hear that he was reaching out to the youth in a more cerebral way, approaching the youth with great ideas and asking them to think about their reality more carefully. Greg continued to say that Pope Benedict seems to be also speaking out against the individualistic society - we should build communion among each other, not being alone. Greg said it was interesting to hear the Pope mention the word "friend" in respect to online activities - many people on their Facebook pages may have a thousand friends. The Holy Father was asking the youth to be careful not to dilute the meaning of the word. Susan said it's important for all of us to follow along with World Youth Day, and how amazing it is that the technology can help us do so, and how that can help make all feel connected to the events in Madrid even from this side of the Atlantic. Scot mentioned that a few websites are doing excellent coverage of World Youth Day Activities: 3rd segment: Scot introduced a segment from Cardinal Seán's catechesis session to English-speakers at World Youth Day on Thursday morning in Spain. Scot highlighted the Cardinal's words that the Eucharist is an extreme expression of God's love for us, and recalled that the founder of World Youth Day, Blessed John Paul II, often talked about love as self-gift or self-donation. Greg commented that he very much agreed with Cardinal Seán - this is only the second World Youth Day that Greg hasn't been to. He said that it is difficult to sit at home and watch the coverage and wishing he was there to experience it, especially with three of his kids there - but came to the conclusion that even though he'd sell an organ to get a plane ticket to Madrid, he should be driven with the same exact zeal to go to church every single Sunday, not just to go to a large mass in Madrid. He emphasized that we need to remember that we can be part of the worldwide community of the Church every single weekend in our own parishes - no need to spend a thousand dollars on a plane ticket or travel to somewhere halfway across the world. Scot said that many of the pilgrims have shared that they're excited to see the Pope - but that the Pope said he doesn't want to be the star of the show, the star of the show should be Jesus Christ. Scot continued that it can be tough to bring the same excitement about a more routine Mass to a once-in-a-lifetime trip like World Youth Day, but that it is what we are all called to do. Susan said she was tickled to see that Cardinal Seán started his catechesis by drawing comparisons to Don Quixote - Scot commented that it isn't surprising knowing that he has a doctorate in Spanish and Portuguese literature. Susan said another favorite part was when Cardinal Seán asked why, if so many youth can read Harry Potter books, could they not read the Bible as well? Cardinal Seán continued and said that many people do not get what they should from the Eucharist because they don't ponder what they hear in the Gospel before receiving Jesus. Susan also said that one of Cardinal Seán's common themes is that we live in an age of entertainment - everyone wants to be entertained all the time. We need to come to Mass to hear the Word of God, give Him glory, and receive the Eucharist, and Cardinal Seán did a great job reminding us that the Mass is not entertainment but growth. Scot said that the Cardinal sometimes preaches at Confirmations and asks the confirmands to know and have an appreciation for what is happening at the Mass so that they might keep coming back. Greg said the Cardinal's answer to a question about the role of scripture in the Church stuck out to him as a former Protestant. Greg said he grew up being very connected to the Bible, and Cardinal Seán's words were important because of how difficult it was to come to grips with the idea that the Church had curated and organized the Bible as we know it. Greg compared it to giving someone a photo album of your life - a viewer of the album would know that you were at a beach, or in a forest, but not if you were having a good time. They wouldn't know if that was the vacation where you broke your toe or that it rained the whole time or that it was beautiful. In the same way, Greg continued, the Church's tradition fills in the context to the scriptures - a very important part of our faith. 3rd segment: Scot introduced an article in both the Pilot and the Anchor this week about a petition submitted to the Massachusetts Attorney General in support of euthanasia - so that elderly and sick people could legally take their own lives. Scot recalled that from what they have discussed on past shows, this is already legal in two states in the Northwest, and many pro-euthanasia activists consider Massachusetts "low hanging fruit." Greg said that the petition wasn't really a surprise, as there was a "Final Exit Network" billboard on I-93 weeks ago (now taken down) promoting support for euthanasia. The petition proposes a "death with dignity" ballot initiative, which must collect about 69,000 signatures to be accepted for a vote. If the signatures are collected, the petition goes to the Legislature who can either let it go, amend it, or offer an alternative to it. Greg listed the criteria for euthanasia according to the petition: the person must be given 6 months or less to live, the request must be made twice in writing, 15 days apart, the requests must be signed by two witnesses who can attest the person is not under duress, and the witnesses may not stand to gain anything from the death of the person. Greg said he thinks the important thing is that the Legislature avoid what we spoke about in the Netherlands several weeks ago - requirements started as stringent as the ones proposed here, and have slowly relaxed and become almost meaningless and are not enforced. Susan said the concept of euthanasia makes her crazy, and the possibility of people being given "death with dignity" without their permission is frightening. She continued, saying that the oversight board in one state is made up of doctors who perform these procedures - that kind of oversight isn't effective or safe for the public in the first place. Scot said that we all need to be speaking up against this, as there's a very well-funded lobby on the other side of the issue. Scot cautioned that if we don't form ourselves, neighbors, kids, and friends, we'll lose on this valuable issue like we have on many in the past. On a related note, Scot highlighted a short piece from the Pilot about Peter J. Cataldo, who was named this week as the first Chief Healthcare Ethicist for the Archdiocese of Boston. Scot said that Dr. Cataldo comes from a similar role in New Hampshire and spent 18 years at the Catholic Bio-Ethics Center as a policy lead as well. Scot explained that Dr. Cataldo will be helping oversee Catholic identity at the former Caritas Christi hospital now owned by Steward Health Care System. Scot quickly mentioned an opinion piece by Monsignor Francis Kelley on the IFRC from a Pastor's Viewpoint. Scot explained that the IFRC, or Improved Financial Relationship Committee and Model, is a better way for parishes to financially support each other and the whole Archdiocese. Msgr. Kelley was one of the first to implement and test the new model, and shares key lessons about what he has learned from the model. First, that stewardship must be tied to a parish's mission; secondly, that some people only buy into the mission of a parish when they feel an "ownership" of their place in the parish; and thirdly that "a rising tide floats all boats." Greg talked about a final column from the outgoing Vicar General, Father Rich Erikson, entitled "A great privilege from every point of view." In the column, Fr. Rich gives a farewell before going to Rome to study next month. Fr. Rich wrote about coming to know Cardinal Seán and respect his leadership, and how much he appreciates working with the Pastoral Center staff. Susan expressed that she had mixed feelings about Fr. Rich's departure - while she is happy that Fr. Rich has the opportunity to go to Rome to study, she will miss his leadership, intelligence, and personality in the building every day. Scot said that Fr Rich will join us on The Good Catholic Life for a show on Friday, August 26th, and encouraged listeners to tune in to hear from Fr Rich directly. Scot quickly mentioned Dr. E Joanne Angelo, a Tufts University assistant professor of psychiatry and medical doctor who was named one of three recipients of the 2011 People of Life Award. Susan added that she lives in Cambridge and is a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Scot also brought up that two parishes will be getting new pastors - Father Thomas Keyes will move from St. Francis of Assisi parish in Medford to be the new pastor of Our Lady of Hope parish in Ipswitch, and Father Albert Faretra will be moving from his current position as pastor at St Joseph parish in Belmont to be the new pastor of St Blaise parish in Bellingham. Scot and Greg closed by discussing a gathering the annual Vianney Cookout that the priests of the Archdiocese have every year to fraternize and hear a speaker. This year's speaker was Monsignor Peter Conley, a former Pilot editor. Greg said he wasn't personally present, but that he was told Msgr Conley's comparison of rectory life of the past and now as well as stories about Cardinal Kushing were well received by his fellow priests.

**Today's host(s):** Scot Landry and Susan Abbott**Today's guest(s):** Fr. Roger Landry, executive editor of The Anchor, the official newspaper of the Fall River diocese; and Gregory Tracy, managing editor of The Pilot, the official newspaper of the Boston archdiocese* [The Pilot](http://www.pilotcatholicnews.com)* [The Anchor](http://www.anchornews.com)**Today's topics:** An offensive state-funded website; pro-euthanasia billboard; local and worldwide reaction to Pope John Paul's beatification**A summary of today's show:** Scot and Susan discuss the news of the week with Gregory Tracy and Fr. Roger Landry, including an offensive, state-funded website telling teens abortion is no big deal; a new billboard in Boston advertising euthanasia; and local and worldwide reaction to the beatification of Pope John Paul II, including our hosts' and guests' personal recollections of the Pope.**1st segment:** Scot catches up with Susan. She said her parish this week confirmed 70 teens and 2 adults, giving the whole parish a spiritual high. Bishop Allue celebrated the confirmation. Scot recalls that in 1979, Susan's pastor Msgr. Helmick was in charge of the papal visit of Pope John Paul II to Boston along with Fr. James McCune. Scot has been going through the archives of the archdiocese, looking for photos of the papal visit.**2nd segment:** Scot and Susan welcome Gregory Tracy and Fr. Roger Landry to the show. On Wednesday, April 20, there was a story in the Boston Herald profiling a website called "Maria Talks" and then a column the next by Michael Graham about the site. The Pilot this week has a story on legislators who want to pull state-funding from the site. The site is partly funded by the state of Massachusetts and run by the AIDS Action Committee and is aimed to be sex education of teens. It includes graphic content on sexual activity and downplays the reality of abortion, saying it's easier than it sounds and that it's not a big deal. It also describes in great detail how to avoid telling parents about an abortion.Susan said that as a mother and a grandmother she is outraged. Massachusetts Citizens for Life sounded the alarm on this site. She recalls that while you may need parental permission to have ears pierced, there is state-funded information on how to get an abortion without parents. Susan said the information they provide is itself factually flawed.Scot said there is a bipartisan group of lawmakers asking Gov. Deval Patrick to take down the website. Fr. Landry said that while people are always telling pro-lifers not to force their morality on them, here they are forcing their immorality on us. Mis- and partial information is being peddled to young people. It's another sign for us to awaken from our slumber, They aren't just trying to force this immorality on our young people and they're trying to make us pay the bill for it. He hopes that we'll keep our vigilance up because this is just scratching the surface of the larger effort to advance the anti-life cause.NARAL Pro-Choice America calls the site "terrific". Gregory said this is abortion distortion: The normal rules of life somehow don't seem to apply when abortion is involved. Children can't bring aspirin to school, but they can get abortions without parental involvement.* [MariaTalks.com](http://mariatalks.com/index.php) **Warning: Graphic Content*** ["Site: No stigma in abortion" (Boston Herald, 4/20/11)](http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1332044)* ["Mass. lawmakers say sex ed website 'disgusting'" (Boston Globe/AP, 4/26/11)](http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/04/26/mass_lawmakers_say_sex_ed_web_site_disgusting/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Local+news)* ["Defunding solves a problem like Maria", Michael Graham (Boston Herald, 4/21/11)](http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2011_0421defunding_solves_problem_like_maria/)Another local story is a Boston billboard outside the Callahan tunnel in East Boston advertising euthanasia. The billboard is paid for by the Final Exit Network. Kris Mineau of the Mass. Family Institute said that the group is looking for low-hanging fruit to drum up support for a pro-suicide bill. Fr. Landry said that when people get to the stage of suffering when they start to think they just want to die, that's when people need more help to live, not a message that they should die. They should be told that they still have much to offer, dying with real dignity. Fr. Tad Pacholczyk of National Catholic Bioethic Center said: "All of us will ourselves invariably die, with 100 percent certainty. Acknowledging the impending arrival of death, and seeking to pass from this life at home surrounded by loved ones can be a great grace."Susan said you often hear people claim that there needs to be a quality of life, but that's the beginning of the slippery slope, if history teaches us anything. Also, she said, the last days of Pope John Paul II taught us much about suffering with dignity, teaching us to live with suffering and to die with dignity.* ["Boston billboard promotes euthanasia" (The Pilot, 4/22/11)](http://pilotcatholicnews.com/article.asp?ID=13248)**3rd segment:** Fr. Landry wrote an editorial in this week's Anchor on exactly why John Paul is being beatified. He framed it in terms of a conversation the pope had in 1995 with George Weigel as Weigel was about to write a biography of the pope. He said the only way to understand him was to understand him as first and foremost a follower of Jesus Christ, that all the fruit he had borne as pope came from the source. A beatification is not an exaltation of a papacy, but an acknowledgement that John Paul lived as a virtuous disciple and that God worked a miracle through the intercession of the pope to show that John Paul can be a model we can follow to grow in the Christian life. Scot said George Weigel writes this week about the beatification and says he worries that we will lose sight of the Pope as a man. When a saint is made, he becomes removed from everyday life and untouchable, an ideal that we can't imagine being. But we are all called to holiness and sanctification. John Paul lived in a radical way, leaning on Christ for strength and guidance, and we're all capable of living this way.Fr. Landry said the Holy Father clarified the standard by which we are to live our lives. John Paul had encountered an attitude in the world that people approach life as a pass-fail course, where we just hope to just get by and into heaven through purgatory. Instead we should strive to get that A+ and doing all the best. The odds that someone striving to get an A will instead fail is much less than someone who sets his sights low and just hopes to get by. God wouldn't call us to anything unless He was willing to give us all that we need to achieve it. John Paul said we need to take prayer seriously, we need to take Mass as the source and summit of existence, we need to be cleansed through confession, to listen to the Word of God and let it take on our flesh, to share the gift of the Word with others, and we need to reach out for God's grace that is extended to us. This is the lesson he preached and lived in his example.* Fr. Roger Landry's editorial in The Anchor on the beatification (to be posted later)* George Weigel's column in The Pilot and The Anchor (to be posted later)* ["George Weigel slams critics of John Paul II's fast track to sainthood" (Catholic News Agency, 4/25/11)](http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/george-weigel-slams-critics-of-john-paul-iis-fast-track-to-sainthood/)**4th segment:** Both The Anchor and The Pilot have testimonies from local people on the life of Pope John Paul. Many people talk about meeting the Holy Father in Rome, sometimes encountering him in his private chapel for Mass. Fr. Roger had the privilege five times. He was always struck by the intensity of his prayer, how focused he was on Jesus when all other eyes were on him. He was a living sign that Jesus Christ is alive. The same Jesus who called Peter from fishing boat called Karol Wojtyla from his home in Wadowice, Poland. Fr. Landry had the experience of preaching the Gospel of Matthew 16:18 as he stood facing Pope John Paul in a private Mass from just four feet away.On his first trip to the United States, Pope John Paul came to Boston in 1979. Susan was a member of the papal choir at the Mass. The choir was directed by then-Fr. Strahan, who composed some settings for the Mass. On the day of the Mass, it poured rain and her red robes stained her clothes underneath. In The Pilot this week, former Boston mayor and former US Ambassador Ray Flynn to the Vatican first met John paul in 1969 when he was Cardinal Wojtyla. Flynn said the result of that meeting was a changing in his outlook on life and a desire to help the poorest and the voiceless. He said that in 1979, when he was a city councilman, he and his wife helped with people who were handicapped attending the papal Mass in the rain on Boston Common.The Pilot talked briefly with Cardinal Sean before he went to Rome for the beatification. He said, "His ministry has a huge impact on the Church and the world. He was always warm and gracious. He was interested in people and energized particularly by young people."Both [CatholicTV](http://www.catholictv.com) and EWTN will have extensive coverage, including the Vigil Mass on Saturday night at 8pm and then on Sunday morning. They will also have many other features on the life of Pope John Paul II. On Monday, the first memorial Mass using the prayers for John Paul led by the Vatican Secretariat of State, Cardinal Bertone.>On Saturday, April 30, at 8 pm, CatholicTV will air a special vigil from the Circus Maximus in Rome. Join pilgrims from around the world and see a video message from Pope Benedict XVI during this broadcast on the eve of the beatification.>>On Monday, May 2 at noon & 8 p.m., CatholicTV will broadcast a special Mass of Thanksgiving for Blessed John Paul from Saint Peter's Square. This Mass will presided over by the Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone.The beatification Mass will air live at 2:30 a.m. Eastern time and will be re-broadcast at noon. Scot said anyone who plans to get up at 1am to watch the royal wedding tomorrow better get up early on Sunday for the beatification Mass.**5th segment:** The beatification will occur on Divine Mercy Sunday. He died six years ago on the eve of Divine Mercy Sunday. The Divine Mercy devotion was very important to him. When John Paul was in the clandestine seminary in Krakow during World War II, he worked a day job in a chemical factory. That was located across the street from the convent where St. Faustina received the messages of Divine Mercy from Jesus. As a young priest he also had a great dedication to hearing confessions, reportedly hearing each confession for up to an hour. He always said that in confession the whole Church is present for that one penitent sinner.  When he was a young archbishop, he promoted the cause in the face of criticism. And as Pope he wrote an encyclical on Divine Mercy and then made St. Faustina the first saint canonized in the new millennium. At that Mass he declared the first Sunday after Easter will be known as the feast of Divine Mercy.Fr. Roger told a story of being in St. Peter's Square on that day and being approached by a young man asking to hear his confession. More and more people lined up to the impromptu confessions and Fr. Roger heard confessions for more than 2 hours. From that time on, he has had a great devotion to the Divine Mercy.

Guest: Gerald Metz, MD Host: Matt Birnholz, MD Host: Michael Greenberg, MD Second Opinion Live speaks with the new medical director of the Final Exit Network, Dr. Gerald Metz. Dr. Metz has assumed this role as the former medical director has temporarily stepped aside pending the outcome of legal issues related to investigations and court issues in several states. Final Exit Network is an organization that provides "exit guides" to assist terminally ill people who want to "end their time on Earth." Other topics include discussion of recent court cases related to patenting human genes, an electronic nose, bomb disposal teams in the operating room and the ReachMD Poll.

Jerry Dincin, President of Final Exit Network, speaks about the attack against that organization by the state of Florida.