Canadian parliamentary debate: Without amendment, Bill C-14 "will protect no one."

Garnett Genuis, MP

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park ­Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) . . .

I want to be clear that I do not believe in an all-or-nothing approach. Many of my colleagues and I who have broad philosophical concerns about what is happening here are still willing to vote in favour of legislation that does not re-criminalize euthanasia, if it advances positively in the direction of saving some lives, especially minimizing the risk to vulnerable persons. However, this legislation does not contain meaningful safeguards. Without amendment, it will protect no one.

We know that this law has written exceptions. However, it has exceptions to the exceptions; and may I say it has exceptions to the exceptions that are not at all exceptional?

This legislation has a requirement for the provision of written consent. However, if people cannot provide written consent, someone else can do it on their behalf.

This legislation prescribes a waiting period. However, the waiting period does not apply in the event of possible imminent death or loss of capacity.

There is so much ambiguity here.

Canada: Liberal MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette is Voting "NO"

Robert-Falcon Ouellette, MP

http://aptn.ca/news/2016/04/20/indigenous-liberal-mp-ouellette-voting-against-governments-assisted-dying-bill/

Liberal MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette says he plans to vote against his party’s proposed bill to legalize medically assisted dying [assisted suicide and euthanasia].

Ouellette said the federal government should work around the deadline and delay legalizing assisted death for at least five to 10 years until it’s absolutely clear what sort of impact it would have in all corners of Canadian society.

Canadian Government Position on Suicide "Absurd"

http://lethbridgeherald.com/commentary/letters-to-the-editor/2016/04/21/is-suicidea-right-ora-tragedy/

Suicide: a right or a tragedy? 

The Emperor has no clothes.

The answer to this question might seem obvious, but the government of Canada apparently thinks that "both" is an appropriate answer. In one week, the same MPs in the same House of Commons discussed recently introduced legislation concerning assisted dying, while also holding an emergency debate on the rash of suicides and suicide attempts in remote aboriginal communities. This is absurd.

On the one hand, we are justifiably concerned and dismayed over the alarming suicide rates in aboriginal communities. And why shouldn't we be? It is tragic that so many people, especially youth, wish to end their lives, deciding that life is meaningless and not worth living.

Canada: Oregon Doctor Urges Rejection of Carter and Bill C-14

Dear Member of Canadian Parliament,

VOTE NO ON BILL C-14; INVOKE THE NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE TO OVERRIDE THE CARTER DECISION

"Don't follow Oregon's
 failed experiment"

For 49 years I have been a cancer doctor in Oregon where assisted suicide has been legal for a number of years. I have seen the tragedy and harm to patients, the medical profession and society from assisted suicide.

If enacted Bill C-14 will encourage people with years to live to have their lives terminated prematurely. My patient, Jeanette Hall, wanted assisted suicide from me in 2000. After helping her have hope in her cancer condition, she agreed to be treated and is now alive and very well 15 years later.  She says, "It's great to be alive!"

A Letter From Western Australia to Canadian MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette

I was pleased to see you questioning the impact of legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia on

Canada's Indigenous people.

As Canada considers legislation to change the law on murder and assisted suicide to allow certain people to be killed with legal immunity it may be helpful to consider the fate of the world's first modern euthanasia law.

In 1996 the Australian Parliament overturned the Northern Territory's euthanasia law. This followed an extensive Senate committee inquiry in which one of the key issues canvassed was the deep opposition to the idea that a doctor could give a lethal injection from the indigenous community and its leaders. Chapter 5 of the committee's report detailed concerns that indigenous health, already seriously below par with that of other Australians, would be further set back as indigenous people were afraid and unwilling to go to a hospital where one of the "treatments" on offer was a lethal jab.

"No" on Bill C-14 and Carter; No Assisted Suicide; No Euthanasia

Robert-Falcon Ouellette

Dear MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette:

I was happy to see the CBC article concerning your reluctance to endorse Bill C-14. You are right to be concerned.

I am a lawyer in Washington State USA where assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal. Bill C-14 and legalization generally will encourage people with years to live to throw away their lives. Carter was wrong. Legalization does not promote the right to life.

Please consider the following reasons:

1.  The bill's title, "medical assistance in dying," implies that eligible people are dying. There is no requirement that people be dying. They are instead required to have a "grievous and irremediable medical condition." See Bill C-14, § 241.2(2).

Canada, Liberal MP Not Sure About Proposed Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia bill

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/robert-falcon-ouellette-doctor-assisted-dying-indigenous-communities-canada-1.3537217

Robert-Falcon
Ouellette, MP

For Winnipeg Centre Liberal member of Parliament Robert-Falcon Ouellette, the ramifications of the Trudeau government's doctor-assisted dying bill are too final.

"Once we make a decision on this, there will be no going back," Ouellette said on Friday.

On Thursday, new legislation on doctor-assisted death [assisted suicide and euthanasia] was formally presented in Parliament.  . . .

The bill is expected to go before the House of Commons for a free vote, which means MPs can base their vote on their conscience, not their party.. . .

"I'm concerned that we haven't thought out the complete ramifications that a decision like this might have on indigenous communities that seem to be suffering greatly," he said. . . .

Ouellette said he has not reached a decision about how he will vote on [the bill] in the House of Commons.

MP Albrecht condemns U.S. court ruling on teen’s suicide

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/6213725-mp-albrecht-condemns-u-s-court-ruling-on-teen-s-suicide/
              

Waterloo Region Record

By Johanna Weidner

Nadia Kajouji embraced
by her father 

KITCHENER — Local MP Harold Albrecht criticized a U.S. court ruling that overturned the conviction of a man charged with encouraging a Brampton teen to take her own life.

William Melchert-Dinkel, a former nurse from Minnesota, was convicted in 2014 of attempting to assist the suicide of 18-year-old Nadia Kajouji, who died after jumping into the Rideau River in Ottawa in 2008.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Monday there wasn't enough evidence to uphold the conviction in the Carleton University student's death.

I want assistance living, not dying

http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4465271-i-want-assistance-living-not-dying/

Assisted suicide

I was born with cerebral palsy and I have lived all of my life with pain. I now have scoliosis, which affects my mobility and gives me further pain. My prognosis is living with a wheelchair.

MP Steven Fletcher has introduced euthanasia bills with language that specifically focuses on people with disabilities because his bills are about him dying by euthanasia.

Fletcher seems to be saying that he does not value his life, but I value my life and the lives of others with disabilities. His "right to die" ends at the point where it affects other people. Don't take me down with your death wish.

As a member of parliament, Fletcher has the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of people with disabilities, to work toward improving social supports and living opportunities, but his euthanasia bills say that our lives are not worth living.

People with disabilities are at risk from euthanasia because they are often dependent on others who legally have the right to make decisions for them. Any legislation that lessens protections in law for people with disabilities is very concerning.

I have overcome many physical and social barriers in my life, I am busy wanting to live, but Fletcher's bill directly affects my right to live.

People with disabilities, who live with a positive mindset, show society how to overcome challenges. We see these challenges as opportunities for personal growth.

Fletcher wants your pity. People with disabilities don't want your pity and we don't want your death.

The concept of euthanasia creates great fear for me. Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide abandons me as a person. That society would rather help me die with dignity, than help me live with dignity. We will fight for the right of people with disabilities to live with equality, value and acceptance.

Steven Passmore, Hamilton                             

Suicide prevention plans at odds with right to die

This Canadian article is consistent with the Oregon experience in which legalization of physician-assisted suicide was followed by a significant increase in other suicides.  See footnote 1.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/op-ed/Martinuk+Suicide+prevention+plans+odds+with+right/9343852/story.html

By Susan Martinuk, Calgary Herald January 3, 2014 

Retired politician Bob Rae used the occasion of a friend's apparent suicide to call on Canada to establish a national suicide prevention plan.

Susan Martinuk

Chris Peloso was Rae's friend and well known in Ontario's political circles as the husband to George Smitherman, a former high-profile cabinet minister and politician. Media reports haven't utilized the term suicide, but the phrase "lost his battle with depression" seems to indicate that was the case.

Calls for such a strategy are made every time there is a high-profile suicide in this country (such as Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons, two girls who suffered unbearable bullying in school and on the Internet). Parliament passed a suicide prevention strategy one year ago, but few seem to be aware of its existence or its implementation, and society continues to call for somebody to do something to prevent such tragedies from occurring.

Prevention is usually a good policy. But I have questions about whether any suicide prevention policy can be successful with Canada's health-care system and be consistent with other societal messages.

The first question is how can we effectively prevent suicides by those who are depressed when our health-care system offers limited (at best) access to psychiatric care and treatment?

A depressed person can call a suicide hotline or speak with a counsellor, and a crisis may be prevented. Or maybe not. But, at some point, the only way to prevent suicide is to access medical treatment.

The Fraser Institute's 2013 report, Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada, reveals that the national average wait time from referral by a general practitioner to the time of beginning non-urgent psychiatric treatment was 20.3 weeks. If you live in New Brunswick, that wait is 73.5 weeks. That's about 1.5 years to access treatment and includes a 46-week wait from the time of GP referral to seeing a psychiatric specialist.

If you live in Saskatchewan, the wait for treatment is one year. Even if the case is urgent, patients still face a five-week wait to get an appointment with a psychiatrist. Anyone familiar with depression or other mental illnesses knows that a lot can change in five weeks, let alone one year.

Rae thinks it's important to have public conversations about mental illness. But awareness has absolutely nothing to do with treatment and, based on the above statistics, it's difficult to imagine that any province could maintain an effective suicide prevention strategy.

My second question raises an issue that Canadians may not be familiar with, but will undoubtedly face in the coming months as Quebec (and eventually the rest of Canada) debates the legalization of euthanasia.

That is, how can we credibly promote suicide prevention strategies at the same time as a large portion of society is publicly claiming they have a right to die? After all, euthanasia is supposedly about the right to self-determination when individuals are forced to live in circumstances that are unbearable.

At least that's how the conversation goes. The reality of legalization is very different, as we've seen in Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Oregon. Each of these has relaxed their laws to the point that depressed people can easily access euthanasia. As one bioethicist claims, euthanasia in these districts expands the options for the mentally ill and "empowers" them when they make the choice.

A 2005 study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that almost one half (44 per cent) of requests for euthanasia were made by patients with depression. These authors started with the premise that terminally ill people who requested euthanasia were more accepting of death and that depression would therefore not be a factor. In contrast, they found that depressed patients were four times more likely to request death.

A report in Current Oncology in 2011 summarized euthanasia in the Netherlands by saying that in 30 years, it "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 of mental suffering," and now to euthanasia of those over 70 who are simply "tired of living."

How do we talk about such facts while promoting a national suicide prevention policy? A society that knows the slippery slope of euthanasia and still accepts its legalization has no credibility in talking about suicide prevention for those with mental illness.

Susan Martinuk is a columnist based in Western Canada. Her column appears every Friday.

* * *
[1]   This quote is from  page 17 of Vote No on SB 220:

Oregon’s suicide rate, which excludes suicide under Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide act, is 35% higher than the national average.  This rate has been "increasing significantly since 2000." Just three years prior, Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide.  This increased suicide rate is consistent with a suicide contagion (legalizing one type of suicide encourag[ing] other suicides).  There is, regardless, a statistical correlation between these two events.

Dr. Kenneth Stevens and Jeanette Hall in Quebec!

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/physician-assisted-suicide-encourages-people-143000132.html

Physician-assisted suicide encourages people with years to live to throw away their lives: an Oregon cancer doctor and his patient tell their story and warn Quebecers

MONTREAL, Oct. 25, 2013 /CNW Telbec/ - The Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice presented a doctor and his patient from Oregon where assisted suicide is legal. 

Dr. Kenneth Stevens is a practicing cancer doctor with more than 40 years' experience. He is also a Professor Emeritus and a former Chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology, Oregon Health & Sciences University,Portland, Oregon. He has treated thousands of patients with cancer. 

Jeanette Hall, Dr. Stevens' patient, is thrilled to be alive 13 years after he talked her out of "doing" Oregon's law, i.e., killing herself with a lethal dose of barbiturates. 

In 2000, Jeanette was diagnosed with cancer by another doctor and told that she had six months to a year to live. This was without treatment. The other doctor had referred her to Dr. Stevens for radiation and chemotherapy. Jeanette, however, had voted for Oregon's law. She had made a firm decision to go forward with Oregon's law instead.

Dr. Stevens did not believe in assisted suicide. He also believed that Jeanette's prospects for treatment were good. He convinced her to be treated instead of doing Oregon's law.

Dr. Stevens talked about how the mere existence of legal assisted suicide steered Jeanette Hall to suicide. He also talked about how financial incentives in Oregon's government health plan also steer patients to suicide. Dr. Stevens warned that if assisted suicide or euthanasia is legalized in Quebec, then the Quebec government health program could follow a similar pattern, that is, to pay for people to die, but not to live.

Dr. Paul Saba, a family physician and co-president of the Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice explained how Quebec's proposed euthanasia law would encourage people, including young adults with treatable conditions, to agree to euthanasia and throw away their lives. The Coalition's position against euthanasia is supported by the World Medical Association representing nine million physicians.

For additional information and references including videos visit coalitionmd.org.

SOURCE Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice

Canada: Crown files opening brief in Carter

Assisted suicide too risky, allowing it demeans value of life, federal gov't says

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Assisted+suicide+risky+allowing+demeans+value+life+federal+says/7447066/story.html

The Canadian Press October 25, 2012 12:30 PM

 

VANCOUVER - The federal government says allowing doctor-assisted suicide demeans the value of life and puts vulnerable people at risk in moments of weakness.

Ottawa has filed its arguments in an appeal of a B.C. decision that struck down the prohibition on doctor-assisted suicide, arguing the trial judge was wrong to conclude the law is unconstitutional.

In documents filed with the B.C. Court of Appeal, the government says the law reflects a reasonable belief that allowing assisted suicide would put vulnerable people at risk of being coerced or even forced to end their lives.

The government says the law reflects Parliament's desire to discourage and prevent suicide in all cases, and it should be up to lawmakers, not the courts, to decide if that needs to change.

Ottawa argues the Supreme Court of Canada's 1993 decision upholding the law in a case involving Sue Rodriguez was final.

The B.C. case was launched by several plaintiffs, including Gloria Taylor, who won a constitutional exemption from the law but died earlier this month without resorting to assisted suicide.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Assisted+suicide+risky+allowing+demeans+value+life+federal+says/7447066/story.html#ixzz2AM32CGOR

Ripping off Grandma: Why seniors should practice tough love

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/household-finances/ripping-off-grandma-why-seniors-should-practice-tough-love/article4614312/

ROB CARRICK, The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Oct. 15 2012, 8:07 PM EDT
Last updated Tuesday, Oct. 16 2012, 9:18 AM EDT

The Bank of Grandma and Grandpa needs to toughen up.

It’s one thing for seniors to plan inheritances for family members and provide cash gifts when affordable.

Where they must set limits is in co-signing or guaranteeing loans for relatives.

Seniors guaranteeing loans is bad business and it also comes dangerously close to elder financial abuse, an unseen but serious problem that can leave seniors destitute.

Elder financial abuse means the illegal or unauthorized use of seniors’ assets – money or property. Laura Tamblyn Watts, a lawyer and senior fellow at the Canadian Centre for Elder Law, said research shows one in 12 seniors will experience financial abuse. Given how under-reported the problem is, she suspects the actual figure is one in eight.

The Oregon Health Plan Steers Patients to Suicide

Yesterday, the Canadian Department of Justice filed evidence in Leblanc v. Canada, including the affidavit of Oregon doctor Ken Stevens.  Therein, Dr. Stevens talks about his patient, Jeanette Hall.  He also describes how with legal assisted suicide, the Oregon Health Plan steers patients to suicide.  His affidavit concludes:

"The Oregon Health Plan is a government health plan administered by the State of Oregon. If assisted suicide is legalized in Canada, your government health plan could follow a similar pattern. If so, the plan will pay for a patient to die, but not to live."

Please find the full text of his affidavit below.  To view a hard copy of his affidavit with supporting documentation, click here.  

Melchert-Dinkel Decision

The syllabus from the decision affirming Melchert-Dinkel's conviction is set forth below.  To view the entire decision, click here.  


"1. Minnesota Statutes section 609.215, subdivision 1, which criminalizes advising, encouraging, or assisting another to commit suicide, is not unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment.


2. The First Amendment does not bar the state from prosecuting a person for advising, encouraging, or assisting another to commit suicide by sending coercive messages to suicide-contemplating Internet users instructing them how to kill themselves and coaxing them to do so." 

Canada: What about the right to cry for help?

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/about+right+help/6907100/story.html

By Amy E. Hasbrouck

It has taken me a long time to read through the nearly 400 pages of the June 15 decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court on the issue of assisted suicide. I found reading it to be like a journey to a dark place, full of raw emotions.

The long and the short of the reasons for judgment issued by Justice Lynn Smith is that legal provisions in Canada prohibiting assisted suicide law are unconstitutional because they impede disabled people’s rights to life, liberty and security of the person.

The judge believes that having a disability or degenerative illness is a rational reason to want to die, and that those of us with disabilities should be helped to die if we can’t do it neatly or efficiently ourselves.

Justice Smith doesn’t appear to believe that people with disabilities and terminal illness are ever coerced, persuaded, bullied, tricked or otherwise induced to end our lives prematurely. She believes those researchers who contend there have been no problems in jurisdictions where assisted suicide is legal, and she rejects evidence suggesting there have been problems.
She writes: “It is unethical to refuse to relieve the suffering of a patient who requests and requires such relief, simply in order to protect other hypothetical patients from hypothetical harm.”

I’ll have to mention that to some of my hypothetical friends who say they have been pressured by doctors, nurses and social workers to hypothetically “pull the plug.”

The same goes for all those folks who succumbed to the pressure; I guess they’re only hypothetically dead.

"Especially if older people have money or real estate, our laws against assisted suicide are there to protect them"

http://www.abbotsfordtimes.com/news/Assisted+suicide+answer/6840769/story.html

Editor, the Times:

Assisted suicide should not be legal because older people are at great risk for abuse. In my experience as a licensed practical nurse working with older people in home care, I have come across many concerning situations.  I have seen firsthand a family fighting over the will of their parents while they are still alive.


I see that this greatly affects the way the parent feels as they grow older.  They feel as if the family wants them to die so they can have their money.  Some express the pain that they feel when they see loved ones discussing their money as if they have already passed away.


If assisted suicide was legal, some older people would feel the need to say yes - to die - because they are given the message that they are a burden to their family. Some of these older people can be easily convinced and put their trust fully in their caregivers and families.


If assisted suicide were legal, then some would really not make the decision, but let someone else make the decision for them. How is this right?  


Especially if older people have money or real estate, our laws against assisted suicide are there to protect them.


Changing the law to allow assisted suicide would violate their right to be protected in this way.


Arlena Vane Aldergrove

Canada, Carter & Outrage!

"Canada will be known as the country where a Provincial Judge has more power than the Federal Government. "

* * *

Dear Ms. Kerry-Lynne Findlay MP,

I am angry and upset about Justice Lynn Smith's decision in the Carter case, giving Ms. Carter the "right" to assisted suicide/euthanasia. 

This erroneous and presumptuous decision by Justice Smith is a guarantee of elder abuse unto death. We already have a problem with elder abuse in Canada. I witnessed this firsthand with my mother, when, after a mild stroke, the relative holding power of attorney decided my mother would have no treatment. I sat by my mother's bedside in a Nova Scotia nursing home, unable to do anything except hold her hand while she suffered for six days, before finally succumbing to dehydration and starvation. If Justice Smith's decision is allowed to stand, there will be no need for inconvenienced or greedy relatives to wait for even this questionable medical procedure of withholding treatment.

It appears that Justice Smith holds herself above the Government of Canada. She has given our elected representatives, such as yourself, a year to comply with her decision to allow people to "help" kill other Canadians. This is the right to commit homicide. The Federal Government of Canada decided many years ago that Canada would not kill convicted murderers, even if they want to die, but now Justice Smith had deemed that anyone in Canada can kill another person who allegedly asks to be killed. 

MP Findlay, the "right" to kill someone is not a decision for a Provincial Court Justice to make. If Justice Smith's decision is upheld, Canada will be a place of supreme irony. We will have the distinction of protecting the lives of convicted murders, while allowing our vulnerable elders and others to be subject to human error or deliberate murder. We will also be, I believe, unique as a nation: Canada will be known as the country where a Provincial Judge has more power than the Federal Government. 

I look forward to your response on this matter.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

Kate Kelly, B.A., B. Ed.

The Carter Opinion: Unclear Legal Effect & Invalid Reasoning

By Margaret Dore

On June 15, 2012, Justice Lynn Smith of the BC Supreme Court issued an opinion purporting to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in Canada.[1]  As discussed below, the legal effect of this opinion is unclear.  The reasoning is also invalid. 

A.  Legal Effect 

The opinion was the result of a summary trial in which both the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of British Columbia argued that the court had no power to do anything other than dismiss the case.  This was due to the Supreme Court of Canada's prior decision on similar facts (the Rodriguez case).  The opinion states:

"They [Canada and British Columbia] say that it is not open to this Court to do anything other than dismiss the plaintiffs' claim."[2]

If Canada and British Columbia are correct, the opinion is nothing more than an advisory document.  Unless and until this point is resolved, any person participating in a death under the opinion will remain at risk of criminal prosecution, civil lawsuits and/or professional discipline.

B.  Invalid Reasoning

The opinion is also written in double-speak, which means to say one thing and to mean another, sometimes the opposite.  Most centrally, the opinion bases the plaintiff's "right to die" on her "right to life" in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[3]  These are opposite concepts.[4] 

The opinion also argues that because Canadian law does not prohibit suicide as a crime, that commiting suicide is a right.[5]  This claim ignores other Canadian law  discouraging suicide. Indeed, a suicidal person can be committed against his or her will in order to prevent a suicide.[6]  With suicide actively discouraged under the law, it cannot be said that the law somehow grants a right to commit suicide.   Once again, the opinion's logic is flawed.

* * *

[1]  To view the opinion, click here.
[2]  Opinion, page 251, paragraph 891.
[3]  Id., pages 365-8.
[4]  See e.g., the opinion at 366, pargraph 1314, which states:  "Canada argues that the right to life does not include the right to choose death.  [Canada] submits that such an interpretation would directly contradict the plain and obvious meaning of a right to life and would mark a significant departure from existing Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence."
[5]  See e.g., the opinion at 10, pargraph 15:  "The claim that the legislation infringes Ms. Taylor's equality rights begins with the fact that the law does not prohibit suicide.  However, persons who are physically disabled such that they cannot commit suicide without help are denied that option because s. 241(b) prohibits assisted suicide."
[6]  See BC Mental Health Act, Part 3, Section 22 (allowing involuntary admissions "to prevent the person's or patient's substantial mental or physical deterioration or for the protection of the person or patient or the protection of others").

From Afghanistan to Activist Against Assisted Suicide: "These are things worth fighting for"

By John Coppard

To view the original publication in Brain Tumour Magazine, click here.
To learn more about Brain Tumour Magazine, click here.

It was early summer 2009 and I was on my second “tour” in Kabul, Afghanistan, this time as NATO’s civilian spokesman.  I was responsible for representing NATO to media from the Alliance’s 28 member nations - regional powers such as Iran, Russia and Pakistan, and other troop contributing nations to the International Security Assistance Force, as well as Afghanistan’s own emerging media.  While my military counterpart handled military-specific issues, I was responsible for explaining the political and diplomatic aspects of NATO’s support to this brave and tragic country. With lukewarm support for the mission in many contributing nations, and a traumatised Afghan population bombarded by Taliban propaganda and wary of Western intentions, the stress of the job could be intense.

I felt up to the challenge.