In the June 2005 edition of Scientific American, the article, “A Culture of Death” by Dianne Martindale, examines the work of Vancouver researcher and euthanasia activist, Russel Ogden but leaves out crucial information about the researcher that would call into question his objectivity and motivations.
Ogden, in the early 1990’s, exposed in his master’s thesis an underground euthanasia movement among those who care for AIDS patients in Canada. Many in the homosexual subculture are known to advocate euthanasia as a solution to the suffering of AIDS patients. Former MP and prominent gay rights activist Svend Robinson has long been a strong advocate for legalized euthanasia.
Ogden’s continuing research reveals that euthanasia is far from the warm fuzzy Hallmark card experience most euthanasia activists would have the public believe. Ogden’s 1994 master’s thesis showed that many “botched” acts of euthanasia resulted in “horrific” acts of violence. Martindale writes that half of the 34 euthanasia cases Ogden studied were “botched” and “resulted in increased suffering.”
“In one instance, the individual who assisted in the suicide had to resort to shooting the patient — in another, to slitting his wrists with a razor blade. These failed attempts often led to the acts of euthanasia taking several hours or longer to complete; in one case, it took four days for the person to die.”
But Ogden himself, instead of condemning assisted suicide because of these horrors, concludes that the real problem was lack of medical “support” for the acts of killing. “[The killers] weren’t sure what they were doing,” he said.
Ogden presents himself as an outside observer who uses objectively gathered data for use by those “on both sides of the debate.” Scientific American obliges by presenting him in this light. But the researcher is in fact far from being a non-partisan outside observer collecting data. The article includes one telling remark which the writer does not pick up on but which sets off unmistakable alarm bells for any leaders in the pro-life movement. His research, Ogden says, “showed that without medical supervision and formal regulations, euthanasia is happening in horrific circumstances, similar to back-alley abortions.” The conclusion therefore is undoubtedly going to be, because abortion needed to be legalized to be “safe”, that euthanasia must also be legalized.
Martindale highlights’ Ogden’s involvement with the organization, NuTech, a group that Martindale portrays as an ultra-secret underground of assisted suicide agents working to develop untraceable methods of killing. Ogden calls the movement the “deathing counterculture” and says, “They are taking the place of physicians to deliver virtually undetectable death assistance.”
“NuTech” is short for New Technology for Self-Deliverance Group and far from being “ultra-secret” its work both to create new ways of killing and to push for legalization, has been publicly touted by Right to Die activists since its founding in 1999.
He makes the suggestion that has become the refrain of euthanasia advocates and lobbyists, that the growth of this underground, “deathing counterculture” is a result of a lack of “supportive legislation.” He suggests that the growth of maverick underground groups like NuTech would be curtailed by legalization which place euthanasia into the realm of competent medical professionals where it belongs.
That this is the refrain of most euthanasia activists, puts the lie to Ogden’s assertion that he is a non-partisan, objective academic researcher. In fact, he is a well-known, long-time advocate of legalized euthanasia according to Alex Schadenberg, the head of Ontario’s Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.com he has reason to believe that Ogden is using his position as an academic researcher as a “veil to protect himself from being labeled a death activist.” That his reports have been taken seriously by parliamentarians and Senators is extremely worrying to those working to preserve the right to life of the disabled.
“Russel Ogden,” suggests Schadenberg, “has not only associated himself with the leading Right to Die activists world-wide for reasons of research, but because he is an active supporter of their work.”
(This article courtesy of LifeSiteNews.com.)
