I will speak from the point of view of one who has participated in the leadership of this movement for the last 40 years. Yes I am getting old celebrating my 69th birthday, But Dereck Humphry at 90 has precedence and he could tell you as well about all the issues that I’ll mention below.

This movement has always been plagued by continuous successive and damaging power struggles of EGO. RTDE, which I fully support, was born out of one of these events which created a schism between WFRtDS and the Europeans. Both organisations are today weaker from this initial move and this does not give a coherent image of our movement worldwide. France is no exception with its 3 (4 for the purists) organisations which are even on fundamental texts, unable to join and show the government and our representatives that the essential issues are common.

I WILL PLEAD, as we review the renewal of RTDE, which I consider essential (thank you all that have made our objectives clear and our goals known), that the RTDE re-join as a chapter with total liberty of action on the European front, the WFRtDS and that budget wise there be a clear funding of activities based on both sources of revenues and agreements on shared actions.

Erika, as much as I appreciate her dedication, cannot be the sole Jean of Arc of our movement. We need to help her by recruiting young talents and consider a means of capitalising on the resources of each of the societies. I can think of Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, France and though I have no access to the budgets, I am sure several others are able to devote 10% of their revenues for combined coordinated European actions. Europe is our future, if we are unable to demonstrate that we are forward thinkers, that we have a global movement which manifests itself in a European entity, we will remain bogged down in local small town politics, we will be largely crushed by our opponents who have international and regional support and funds, we will be subject to lobby’s for whom the last 6 months of life is BIG BUSINESS.

I have views on our movement which are not understood by those who want a law « dictating » a peaceful death. My opinion is that assistance in dying has always been a normal act for a caretaker at the end of life. I want a law that basically says « If you ask another to help you die at end of life, you accept that a professional has the duty to make the difference between a temporary mental condition and a well thought through decision. That the society has the right to define a framework for « assisted dying » in order to fulfil its mission of social coherence and protection of the weak. That we need to protect the essential dialogue between a caretaker and the individual concerned so that they can constructively make the «best » decision, including, when appropriate, the decision to end a life which has no meaning. To achieve this goal, and insure that it will be effectively put into practice by compassionate medical or possibly non-medical professionals, we must formulate the law so that those who are to help us are fully protected and see our law, not as a « directive to kill », but as a protection of their professional expertise able to discern between a rightful claim to end what is or will become an agony as perceived by the person concerned; and a psychological inability to perceive that for example losing a loved one is not a valid reason to die (Romeo and Juliet).

Well, I have had my say, I wish you well and you can count on me to help facilitate all I can to make our most profound wish, dying with dignity, a reality.