Saturday, February 6, 2016

Dana Palmer: Against Colorado's assisted suicide bill.

This article was published in the Colorado Springs Gazette on February 3, 2016.

Dana Palmer
My name is Dana Palmer. In 2005, I was diagnosed with Glioblastoma-terminal brain cancer. My prognosis was only 3-12 months. Shortly after my diagnosis, my doctor received a form asking, "When will the patient recover sufficiently?" He drew a horizontal line through it, and wrote never!

My experience is similar to that of thousands of Coloradans who every year face terminal diagnoses and the stigma that they don't have a chance to live, and may be better off dead!

Assisted suicide only worsens this stigma.

After surviving my terminal prognosis for 10 years, I heard the story of the young California woman named Brittany Maynard who faced the same disease I did, and at the exact same age. She took her cancer story public, and it was used to headline a national effort to "normalize" assisted suicide. Immediately, she and other assisted suicide supporters sent a message to patients across the country: Assisted suicide is for you" and "There is no reason for hope." This is a very dangerous message for current and future patients!

Assisted suicide supporters call it a "choice," but to people facing a diagnosis like mine it can be interpreted as an obligation since many patients already feel like a burden. At any time after a terminal diagnosis emotions can run wild, and minds often change daily regarding treatment and care. But assisted suicide is final, it's an action that can't be undone. It can leave doctors and loved ones with regrets.

Under a bill currently proposed in Colorado, I would be eligible for assisted suicide based on my diagnosis. I would be permitted to see any doctor regardless of whether I had a previous relationship with them, and receive a lethal prescription in just a matter of days. Recently, I had a recurrence and battled my insurance company for a month to try to get approval for an out of network consultation at a major cancer facility that specializes in brain cancer. While I was appealing their decision, the cancer became more aggressive!

Sadly, had I asked for a lethal prescription - saving them hundreds of thousands of dollars - it would have likely been approved the same day and I would be dead right now! My family would not be required to know, and I would not be required to be evaluated by a psychologist or psychiatrist.

My journey hasn't been easy; however, people facing serious or terminal diseases have much better options than assisted suicide. And while no option is perfect, assisted suicide legalization sends a dangerous message to people like me about what the government thinks is my best option. I urge the Colorado Legislature to reject the idea that lethal drugs are an answer to serious illness or terminal diagnoses.

Ultimately, physician assisted suicide takes away the patient's choice to fight and live, and puts the power in the hands of doctors (that may have limited experience with the diagnosis and long term survivors) in a profit-driven health care system or to over-burdened caregivers.

Why should anyone die before their time, if in fact there may be a reason for hope?

Friday, February 5, 2016

Assisted Death: I never thought this day would come.

This article was published as a CMAJ blog on Feb 3, 2016 and republished with permission.

Diane Kelsall
By Diane Kelsall, 
Deputy Editor at CMAJ, and editor of CMAJ Open.

In June 1993 I attended my first international research meeting. WONCA (World Organization of National Colleges, Academies and Academic Associations of General Practitioners/Family Physicians) was having its annual meeting in The Hague and I had gotten funding from my fellowship program to attend.

It was all very exciting for someone new to the research world to see the hustle and bustle, and feel the energy, that accompanies such a large meeting. Even Queen Beatrix attended.

But that’s not what I remember most about the meeting.

One of the sessions put on by the local organizers focused on euthanasia (that was the term used at the conference). At the time, the Netherlands was the only jurisdiction in the world where this practice was legalized. Many attended out of curiosity—and the collective response was interesting. Numerous attendees filed out of the session in silence, clutching handouts that described euthanasia protocols:

Administer this. If the patient is still breathing, administer that. If the patient’s heart is still beating, do this.
We stood in small groups, hardly able to grasp what we were reading. This was so contrary to everything we had been taught and everything we believed. How could physicians have crossed this line? When did “above all do no harm” turn into an algorithm for death?

When I returned home, I put the protocols away in my desk. Every few years, I would stumble across them—and each time, I felt chilled as I read them.

Fast forward to February 2, 2016,,,
I received an email outlining interim guidance from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario on physician-assisted death. As I read through the guidance, I came across this statement: “College members may wish to consult resources on drug protocols used in other jurisdictions. Examples of such protocols are available in the Members’ section of the College’s website.”

More than twenty years after my trip to The Hague, I was again being given access to protocols to end patients’ lives.

Only, this time, it was in my own country. In my province. From my College.
I never thought this day would come. And I am still chilled.

Assisted suicide lobby: force doctors to kill.

Wesley Smith
This article was written by Wesley Smith and published by the National Review on February 4, 2016.

By Wesley Smith

When seeking to convince a wary public to legalize assisted suicide, euthanasia pushers ooze with promises and assurances that it will only be a last resort–never actually a legal requirement–and that doctors and religious facilities can always opt out.

But once euthanasia consciousness is widely accepted by a population, we find that these promises were made to be broken.

In Oregon, doctors are protected in law if they don’t wish to assist suicides, and religious medical institutions can legally opt out–which many do.

That doesn’t sit well with David Grube, a national medical director for Compassion and Choices–the George Soros-funded assisted suicide promoting and facilitating death organization. Based on a column published in the Register Guard, he wants religious medical facilities forced into cooperation.

From the column:
However, some dying and suffering Oregonians are still not allowed the choice of a death with dignity as they would define it. Some private institutions, particularly those owned and operated by religious institutions, do not allow their employed staff (physicians, hospice workers, etc.) to participate in the process.
Because there can never be enough assisted suicides. 

Besides, C & C has a list of death doctors ideologically predisposed to lethally prescribe. Indeed, the majority of Oregon’s assisted suicides have the hemlockers’ finger prints on them.

What to do? Coerce!
No physician who is personally opposed to helping her or his competent and dying patients end their suffering is obliged to participate. But all physicians should consider referring their patients when the occasion arises — and, in my opinion, no institution should prevent their medical providers from considering legal medical decisions. The state of Oregon, not the church, licenses physicians and determines their competencies and privileges. 
Institutions have the right to choose who can be on their medical staffs. Forcing a Catholic hospital (say) to employ or give staffing privileges to death doctors would violate the free exercise of religion, the right to free association, and all the (false) assurances made by the right to die crowd when they cajole people into legalizing prescribed death.

Lest you think religious institutions will never be forced to act lethally, they already are in Quebec, where euthanasia is euphemistically called “aid in dying,” and from all appearances, an approach that will be taken throughout all of Canada when the euthanasia-is-a-right Supreme Court decision goes into effect nationally.

This despite the Canadian Charter’s guarantee of “freedom of conscience and religion.”

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Charlie Lewis: Why I oppose assisted suicide.

By Charlie Lewis

For those who know me or have heard me speak against assisted suicide and euthanasia, you will be familiar with my struggle with spinal problems. I realize that my testimony about my own experience with horrific pain was fair game to use in my arguments against legalized euthanasia, given that legalized killing in this country would also include those with chronic pain.

Pain is universal. It is almost a common denominator of our humanity. Some lucky few will escape the worst of it or will only be plagued for a short time. For me it is now four years and counting. During that time I was forced to leave my beloved newspaper, The National Post, and my position as religion reporter — the greatest beat I had during my 33 years in journalism. And with that I lost the addictive camaraderie of the newsroom.

I was forced to cease nearly every activity I loved: cycling, hiking in the Rockies and moderate consumption of beer and wine — as well as the odd glass of bourbon or single malt scotch. The decision to stop drinking was not my own choice but the reality that after taking morphine every day it is simply too dangerous to consume alcohol.

None of these things should elicit pity. But my condition, along with two surgeries, knocked me into a world I did not expect to visit for many more years.

Pain is isolating. It can play mental tricks on you. It can make you sick to your stomach on some days and cause long bouts of insomnia. And then there is the isolation and the overriding feeling of worthlessness when you are no longer vital and creative.

In the Netherlands and Belgium those with chronic pain, as well as those with depression and other forms of mental illness, can qualify for state-sanctioned suicide. It appears from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision of last February, when the Court ruled on assisted suicide and by extension euthanasia, that it will not only be the dying who will be granted the wish to die from a physician’s needle.

People who know more than me say that if I were a resident of either Holland or Belgium I could find a fast exit from this life. I believe sadly that the same option will be available to me and others like me in the near future in Canada.

While I was in the worst of the pain, I began to take stock of my situation. One thing about being alone and also suffering from insomnia that was there is plenty of time to think.

I realized that for all my problems, I was still in a good situation. In other words, it was easier for me to be sick than many others.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Joint Parliamentary Committee on Assisted Suicide Refuses to hear from leading experts on the need for effective oversight to protect Canadians


Fundamental to keeping Canadians safe in the operation of a state-sanctioned assisted dying regime is the need for rigorous before the fact oversight by an independent judge or tribunal stated Hugh Scher, Toronto constitutional lawyer and disability rights advocate. Scher stated:
Hugh Scher
Before the fact judicial oversight is essential to any assisted suicide regime that Parliament may seek to introduce. It is the only way to ensure compliance with legislative criteria established to identify vulnerability and prevent abuse before people are put to death.
EPC VP Amy Hasbrouch stated that:
This position is endorsed by multiple stakeholders across the country including from the disability community, the medical community and legal experts.
In all jurisdictions where assisted death is legal, the laws lack effective oversight. Consequently, safeguards, including the need for consent from the patient are routinely ignored.

A study published in the NEJM (March 19, 2015) found that 1.7% of all deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium in 2013 were assisted without request. Therefore more than 1000 deaths were intentionally hastened without request. The same study determined that nearly half of the assisted deaths went unreported states Alex Schadenberg, EPC executive director.

Dr. Will Johnston states that adoption of a Belgian-style euthanasia regime in Canada, such as has been adopted in Quebec, without effective before the fact judicial oversight to ensure compliance with legislative requirements would be a recipe for disaster that is certain to put Canadians at risk.

Euthanasia is not a form of health care. Defining euthanasia as health care would mean that lethal injections become a form of medical treatment. Not only is this an Orwellian concept, but it is one that would certainly leave Canadians without a safe space within the healthcare system, states Dr. Johnston, Chair of EPC – British Columbia.

Despite more than 15 years of extensive experience with the legal, medical and practical challenges associated with assisted suicide practices in other jurisdictions, the Joint Parliamentary Committee has deliberately refused to hear from leading constitutional, medical and sociological experts, who have previously advocated against the adoption of euthanasia or assisted suicide in Canada because of the risks that it poses to all Canadians and our healthcare system.

Failure to hear particularly from those who are experts who raise concerns about euthanasia practices in other jurisdictions represents a fatal flaw to the committee's deliberations and an intentional attempt to silence those with differing viewpoints while embracing those who promote unbridled euthanasia. Such an approach runs completely contrary to the Government's stated objective of conducting a comprehensive consultation with all relevant stakeholders in order to implement a safe and measured response to the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Supreme Court's conclusion that assisted suicide could be legalized safely in Canada is predicated on the notion of strong federal regulation. The court concluded that a legislative response would require a "carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards." It was only the possibility of crafting a scheme with such effective oversight and safeguards that led the court to reject the argument that weakening the prohibitions will inevitably lead to the casual termination of life including the lives of individuals who do not wish to die, notes Scher.

The Committee's exclusion and refusal to hear from leading national experts on the subject call into question its motives and actions and greatly undermines the conclusions it may draw as a consequence of its limited and self-selected inquiry.

For more information contact:
Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director (London) 519-851-1434,
Hugh Scher, EPC Legal Counsel (Toronto) 416-816-6115,
Dr Will Johnston, Chair EPC – BC (Vancouver): 604-220-2042,
Amy Hasbrouck, EPC – VP (Montréal): 450-921-3057,

Colorado Assisted Suicide Bills Recipe for Elder Abuse


Dore: "Even if you like the concept of assisted suicide and euthanasia, the proposed Colorado bills have it all wrong.”

Contact: Margaret Dore (206) 697-1217

Denver, CO  --  Attorney Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, which has fought assisted suicide legalization efforts in many states and now Colorado, made the following statement in connection with legislative hearings being held today and tomorrow on bills seeking to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in that state. 

"The bills, SB 16-025 and HB 16-1054, seek to legalize physician-assisted suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia as those terms are traditionally defined," said Dore. "The bills are described as 'aid in dying,' but their reach is not limited to dying people. 'Eligible' persons may have years, even decades, to live."

Dore said, "The bills are a recipe for elder abuse. The patient's heir, who will financially benefit from the patient's death, is allowed to actively participate in signing the patient up for the lethal dose. There is no oversight over administration."  Dore elaborated, "No doctor, not even a witness, is required to be present at the death. Even if the patient struggled, who would know? The bills create the perfect crime." 

"It gets worse," said Dore. "The bills require the death certificate to be falsified to reflect a death by a terminal illness.  The significance is a loss of transparency as to the true cause of death and an inability to prosecute in the case of an outright murder for the money; the death, as a matter of law is a terminal illness."  

The Colorado bills seek to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia for people who are "terminal," which is defined as a doctor’s prediction of less than six months to live. In real life, such persons can have years, even decades, to live.

“Doctors can be wrong about life expectancy, sometimes way wrong," Dore said. "This is due to actual mistakes: They evaluated another patient’s test results. More typically, however, doctors are wrong because predicting life expectancy is not an exact science. A few years ago, I was met at the airport by a man who at age 18 had been diagnosed with ALS and given 3 to 5 years to live, at which time he was predicted to die by paralysis. The diagnosis had been confirmed by the Mayo Clinic. When he met me at the airport, he was 74 years old. The disease progression had stopped on its own.”

“If the Colorado bills become law, there will be new lethal paths of elder abuse, which will be legally sanctioned and hidden from view," said Dore. "People with years, even decades to live, will be encouraged to throw away their lives. Even if you like the concept of assisted suicide and euthanasia, the proposed Colorado bills have it all wrong.”

For back up documentation, please see below:.

1. Memo from Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA, to the Colorado Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee and to the Colorado House Judiciary Committee, January 30, 2016, available here:  and here.

2.  Margaret K. Dore, "'Death with Dignity': What Do We Advise Our Clients?," King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, May 2009,
3.  Nina Shapiro, "Terminal Uncertainty: Washington’s new "Death With Dignity" law allows doctors to help people commit suicide-once they’ve determined that the patient has only six months to live. But what if they’re wrong?" Seattle Weekly, 01/14/09, available here.

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Euthanasia for depression to be debated in Canada

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Tara Brousseau-Snider
Canada's parliament will soon debate whether to euthanasia should be permitted for psychological suffering. 

The Supreme Court of Canada, on February 6, struck down Canada's assisted suicide law and used language that permits euthanasia. The Supreme Court did not define the terminology but it stated that an assisted death could be permitted for someone who has irremediable pain caused by physical or psychological suffering.

CBC Manitoba reported on an unnamed Winnipeg woman who pushing the issue by requesting a euthanasia based on psychological suffering. Tara Brousseau-Snider, executive director of the Mood Disorders Association of Manitoba stated that woman who wants euthanasia said: "If it was in place, they'd apply for it."

Brousseau-Snide told CBC Manitoba that she is concerned about a law permitting euthanasia for depressed people.
"And I'm very concerned about this law. It's not a permission-giving thing. Governments should not mandate that if you're depressed, it's OK to kill yourself."
John Melnick told CBC Manitoba that:
"Let's just say I am glad it wasn't legal before now," said John Melnick, who's lived with depression for decades, and tried three times to kill himself. 
"Because if [physician-assisted death] was in place then, I likely would have tried to get one. And I wouldn't be here today." 
Melnick said thanks to a combination of therapies, he is today alive and well.
Whereas Queens University philosophy professor, Udo Schuklenk, said that he hopes euthanasia will be approved for depression.

Euthanasia based on psychological suffering is permitted in the Netherlands, Belgium and Québec. The 2014 Netherlands euthanasia report stated that there were 5306 assisted deaths with 41 assisted deaths for psychiatric reasons and 81 assisted deaths for dementia in 2014.

In 2015, euthanasia for psychiatric reasons included a healthy 63 year old autistic man who was depressed and felt that he had no reason to live and a healthy woman with tinnitus.

There were several controversial Belgian psychiatric euthanasia cases in 2015. 

In June, psychiatrist, Dr Lieve Thienpont approved the euthanasia death of Emily, a 24-year-old physically healthy woman who was living with suicidal ideation. The good news is that Emily decided to liveIn October the euthanasia death of Simona de Moor was done by Dr Van Hooy based on psychological suffering connected to the death of her daughter.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition rejects all forms of assisted death, especially lethal injections based on psychological suffering.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

France approves terminal sedation legislation.

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Paris protest against euthanasia (June 24, 2014)
Politicians in France have been debated the legalization of euthanasia for many years. 

In January 2011, the French Senate rejected a euthanasia bill by 170 - 142. During the 2012 election President François Hollande promised to legalize euthanasia but since then Hollande has faced strong opposition to his plan. In June 2015, France's Senate rejected a bill that permitted euthanasia by dehydration and in October 2015, a French court decided that Vincent Lambert should continue to receive food and fluids.

The Associated Press has now reporting that French lawmakers approved a bill that allows "terminal sedation" but not euthanasia. 

According to the media report the French government approved a bill that allows doctors to sedate a person, upon request, who is nearing death, and withdraw life-sustaining treatments including nutrition and hydration (food and water). According to the article:
The new law will allow patients to request "deep, continuous sedation altering consciousness until death" but only when their condition is likely to lead to a quick death. Doctors will be allowed to stop life-sustaining treatments, including artificial hydration and nutrition. Sedation and painkillers will be allowed "even if they may shorten the person's life." 
The bill will also apply to patients who are unable to express their will, following a process that includes consultation with family members. 
The methods can involve medicating patients until they die naturally of their illness or until they starve. Some doctors, however, say it may be more human to euthanize.
I have not read the bill, but if the bill allows doctors to intentionally cause the death of a person by dehydration, when the person is not otherwise dying, then the act is "slow euthanasia" or euthanasia by dehydration. If the bill clearly limits sedation and dehydration to people who are actually nearing death, then the act is closer to palliative sedation.

The European Institute of Bioethics outlined three main concerns with the legislation:
1. The new law introduces end of life in its Article 2 to an extent that many Health professionals denounce as dangerous. "Artificial" nutrition and hydration is referred to as medical treatment and not care. As such, it can be stopped at the patient's request or following a collegial procedure if the patient can not speak. 
2. Article 3 establishes a new "right of continuous deep sedation [...] until death." Many parliamentarians, health professionals, lawyers and patient organizations have denounced this fuzzy measure as unclear in its framework and conditions it poses, which could lead to a form of masked euthanasia. Indeed, the criteria often appear subjective. The terms "commits its short-term prognosis" or "likely to cause unbearable suffering", are not defined by law. The law can then be applied to a variable conditions which creates genuine legal insecurity. 
3. We strongly denounce that ... advance directives become binding and come to impose the doctor "except in life-threatening emergencies [...] and when directives are manifestly inappropriate or inconsistent with the medical situation." The risk is that it causes a shift in the role of the doctor, possibly imposing acts contrary to the doctors ethics and his conscience.
I am concerned that the bill defines food and fluid as a form of medical treatment. Food and fluid are not medical treatment but rather normal care.

I am also concerned, that the bill allows doctors to sedate and withdraw food and water from a person who is incompetent based on an advanced directive or based on the decision of a proxy. I fear that the protocols established in this bill will be followed, when a person is deemed incompetent even when the person is not otherwise dying. 

Acts of sedation and dehydration can be ethically the same as euthanasia when the intent is not based on palliating symptoms but rather causing death.

CARP is now a pro-euthanasia advocacy group.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Susan Eng
The Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) under the leadership of Moses Znaimer, the former owner of CITY TV, has officially become an advocacy group promoting unfettered euthanasia.

According to an article by Gloria Galloway in the Globe and Mail, Susan Eng, the long-time Executive Vice President of CARP was fired by Moses Znaimer based on her neutral position on euthanasia and assisted suicide and replaced by Wanda Morris, the former CEO of Dying With Dignity. According to the article:
The woman who has been the public face of Canada’s leading seniors organization for the past eight years says she has been dismissed by media mogul Moses Znaimer, who is also the organization’s president, because she insisted on taking a neutral approach to the emotionally charged issue of assisted dying. 
Susan Eng was told on Tuesday that she was no longer needed as the executive vice-president of advocacy at CARP Canada. She then learned on Wednesday that she was being replaced by Wanda Morris, the head of Dying with Dignity Canada, which advocates for access to physician-assisted dying and against unnecessary barriers when safeguards are being imposed to protect the vulnerable. 
... “The only reason he fired me was so that they can put out an official position for CARP saying that they want to insist on assisted dying on demand,” said Ms. Eng, a Toronto lawyer and former chair of the city’s police services board.
Znaimer has been promoting a radical pro-euthanasia position for some time. He his written one-sided propaganda articles urging "euthanasia on demand." Znaimer also wrote an article misconstruing the Bentley case in BC, a case that concerned the issue of whether normal feeding is medical treatment. 

Many seniors are members of CARP to enjoy the travel, insurance and other benefits that are obtained through a CARP membership. Many seniors will now not renew their CARP membership or seeking an alternative organization to attain similar benefits.

Canadian seniors need to know that purchasing a membership in CARP is actually supporting a euthanasia advocacy group.

The CARP media release stated:
A New Vision of Aging for Canada, Chairman, President and CEO Moses Znaimertoday announced that Susan Eng has departed CARP effective immediately. 
Moses has also announced that Wanda Morris has been appointed as CARP’s new Vice President of Advocacy and COO. 
Most recently, Wanda was CEO of Dying With Dignity Canada (DWD Canada) where she led a strategic campaign for legislative change leading up to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the ground-breaking Carter v. Canadacase for the right-to-die with dignity.
Dying With Dignity also changed its position while under the leadership of Wanda Morris. Historically, Dying With Dignity officially supported assisted suicide but opposed euthanasia. Dying With Dignity is now a radical supporter of euthanasia.

Last year Dying With Dignity lost its charitable status based on the fact that had become a political lobby group and their purpose ceased being charitable. It is possible that Znaimer hired Morris because Dying With Dignity was unable to continue paying her a competitive salary.

Honouring Kevin Fitzpatrick (OBE).

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick
By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick (OBE) passed away two weeks ago but tomorrow is his funeral.

For me, Kevin was a trusted colleague and friend who I will always miss. I learned a lot from Kevin and I will carry those lessons with me forever.

Kevin accepted many leadership roles and he was an example of what can be done when people work together. Kevin was the director of EPC - International, the director of Hope Ireland and the past director of EPC - Europe.

Spokesperson for
Not Dead Yet UK
Kevin was also a key leader with Not Dead Yet - UK and acted as their spokesperson for several of their successful campaigns.

Kevin's professional background gave his approach to the debate on how to care for and support people with terminal and incurable illnesses and disabilities a particularly well-rounded quality. From disability (Disability Wales; Disability Rights Commission; Inclusion21; Not Dead Yet UK) to adoption (the Welsh Government's Adoption Expert Advisory Group; St David's Children's Society), not to mention five years with the Welsh Ambulance Trust, Kevin's outlook was firmly rooted in seeking answers to a single question: 'how can we as a society work to support and uphold the value of every person around us?' This was his life's work, with a particular focus on the most vulnerable and marginalised. (borrowed from the Care Not Killing Alliance)

Kevin was a great communicator. Kevin wrote many articles, he did many debates, he was interviewed on countless occasions and he provided excellent conference speeches. Here are links to his recent articles:

Hope Ireland conference
Kevin was a collaborator.
Kevin knew that success came through activating many people who have different perspectives. Kevin knew that there were many reasons to oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. He was most comfortable speaking from his personal experience with disability, but he was also incredibly effective at reaching out to multiple political points of view.

Kevin was a leader. Kevin knew the direction that we needed to go and he shared his wisdom with everyone who he worked with. He had a way of listening to perspectives and carefully correcting false ideas. Several leaders have shared with me the way that Kevin would help them and advise them in their advocacy. He was a patient leader, even when he didn't agree.

Launching EPC Europe in Brussels
Kevin was a family man and my friend.
My experience with Kevin was that he put the needs of his family, especially his wife Fabienne, before himself. He was proud of his children, Terry, Gerry and Sue. 
He was sick for sometime, but he shared with me his concern for his family and placed them ahead of himself.

There are so many people who experienced Kevin, as a gifted friend, in their lives. I for one, will always be thankful for the opportunity of having him in my life.