http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_03dfa5e3-26fa-588f-8765-b85fc6f81622.html?comment_form=true
April 22, 2013
I was disturbed to
see the (April 7) opinion by Eric Kress promoting physician-assisted suicide. I
am a cancer doctor with more than 40 years experience in Oregon, where
physician-assisted suicide is legal. I am also a professor emeritus and former
chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Oregon Health and Science
University.
I first became involved with the assisted-suicide issue
shortly before my first wife died of cancer in 1982. We had just made what would
be her last visit with her doctor. As we were leaving, he had suggested that she
overdose herself on medication. I still remember the look of horror on her face.
She said “Ken, he wants me to kill myself.”
In Oregon, the combination of
assisted suicide legalization and prioritized medical care based on prognosis
has created a danger for my patients on the Oregon Health Plan (Medicaid).
First, there is a financial incentive for patients to commit suicide: the plan
will cover the cost. Second, the plan will not necessarily cover the cost of
treatment due to statistical criteria. For example, patients with cancer are
denied treatment if they are determined to have “less than 24 months median
survival with treatment” and fit other criteria. Some of these patients, if
treated, would however have many years to live, as much as five, 10 or 20 years
depending on the type of cancer. This is because there are always some people
who beat the odds. The plan will cover the cost of their suicides.
In
Oregon, the mere presence of legal assisted-suicide steers patients to suicide
even when there is no coverage issue. One of my patients was adamant she would
use the law. I convinced her to be treated instead. Twelve years later she is
thrilled to be alive.
Don’t make Oregon’s mistake.
Kenneth
Stevens, MD,
Sherwood, Ore.
Why Choice is an Illusion?
- Home
- Welcome
- Who We Are, What We Do and How We Do It
- US States Strengthen Laws Against Assisted Suicide
- Margaret Dore Beats the Odds
- Click Here to View Our Charitable Foundation Website
- Winning in Idaho
- Our Board
- Mother Died by Dehydration and Starvation
- Dore Law Review Article on Oregon and Washington
- Definitions
- Contact
- Margaret Dore Featured by Hope Australia
- Dore Lead Witness In Rhode Island
- Dore Opposes Right to Die in South Africa
Showing posts with label Montana. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Montana. Show all posts
Monday, April 22, 2013
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Montana: Great News! HB 505 Voted to the Floor!!!!
This afternoon, the Montana Senate "blasted" HB 505 to the floor in a 31 to 17 Vote!!!!
Thank you to everyone else who worked so hard to get us this far!!!
Yeah!!!!!
Yeah!!!!!
Margaret Dore
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
"Once in place, this 'trend' is not controllable"
Dear Senators:
For those of you who don't know me, I am an attorney in Washington state where physician-assisted suicide is legal. I am writing to urge you to not make Washington's mistake by allowing assisted suicide/euthanasia to become part of your state's legal fabric. Once in place, this "trend" is not controllable. I urge you to vote "Yes" on HB 505 to clearly state that assisted suicide is not legal in Montana.
In 2008, we voted for a law to legalize assisted suicide for persons predicted to have less than six months to live. Voters were promised that "only" the patient could take the lethal dose. Our law does not say that anywhere. By 2011, there were newspaper proposals to expand our law to direct euthanasia for non-terminal persons. Last year, a friend sent me this article in our largest paper suggesting euthanasia for people unable to afford their own care, which would be involuntary euthanasia. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2017693023.html ("After Monday's column, . . . a few [readers] suggested that if you couldn't save enough money to see you through your old age, you shouldn't expect society to bail you out. At least a couple mentioned euthanasia as a solution.") (Emphasis added).
In my law practice, I have had two clients whose parents signed up for the lethal dose.
In one case, one side of the family wanted the parent to take the lethal dose while the other did not. The parent spent the last months of his life traumatized and/or struggling over the decision of whether or not to kill himself. My client was also traumatized. The parent did not take the lethal dose and died a natural death
In the other case, it's unclear that the parent's death was voluntary. This was due to his reportedly refusing to take the lethal dose at his first suicide party and then being high on alcohol the next night when he drank the dose at a second party. (The person who told this to my client recanted). But, as a lawyer who has worked on divorce cases, I couldn't help but notice that if the parent's much younger wife had divorced him, the parent would have got the house. This way, the surviving wife got everything.
Meanwhile, my friends who provide elder care report that they now have to "guard" their clients in the hospital to avoid the initiation of "comfort care" (morphine overdose and the sudden death of the client). See e.g. http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2012/07/dear-montana-board-of-medical-examiners.html
Montana
In Montana, you have had similar developments. In 2007, the Baxter case was initiated seeking to legalize physician-assisted suicide for "terminally ill adult patients," the implication being that the practice would be limited to dying people. The proposed definition of "terminally ill adult patient," however, was broad enough to include an otherwise healthy 18 year old dependent on insulin. See http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/schrempp_wonderly_opn_ltr1.pdf
In late 2009, the Baxter opinion was issued in your Supreme Court ruling that doctors who assist a suicide in certain narrowly defined circumstances have a defense to prosecution if charged with homicide. Since then, I have been contacted by several Montanans describing the misuse or abuse of "comfort care" against their loved ones. Three of these persons have specifically endorsed HB 505, see for example, this letter by Carol Mungas, the widow of a prominent physician who was euthanized by nurses against his will. See http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2013/03/i-support-house-bill-505-which-clearly.html
Last month in the Senate Judiciary Committee, a doctor described his assisting three suicides in Montana. See http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013303260026
If he is not prosecuted, or if the prosecution fails, assisted suicides will thereby be encouraged and, given Washington's experience, there will be a push to expand the practice to less compelling cases, for example, persons with treatable diabetes. If, instead, HB 505 is enacted, there will be a clear statement going forward that assisted suicide is not legal in Montana.
This is why HB 505 is needed now.
Thank you for your consideration.
Margaret Dore
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.
Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation
www.margaretdore.com
www.choiceillusion.org
1001 4th Avenue, 44th Floor
Seattle, WA 98154
For those of you who don't know me, I am an attorney in Washington state where physician-assisted suicide is legal. I am writing to urge you to not make Washington's mistake by allowing assisted suicide/euthanasia to become part of your state's legal fabric. Once in place, this "trend" is not controllable. I urge you to vote "Yes" on HB 505 to clearly state that assisted suicide is not legal in Montana.
In 2008, we voted for a law to legalize assisted suicide for persons predicted to have less than six months to live. Voters were promised that "only" the patient could take the lethal dose. Our law does not say that anywhere. By 2011, there were newspaper proposals to expand our law to direct euthanasia for non-terminal persons. Last year, a friend sent me this article in our largest paper suggesting euthanasia for people unable to afford their own care, which would be involuntary euthanasia. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2017693023.html ("After Monday's column, . . . a few [readers] suggested that if you couldn't save enough money to see you through your old age, you shouldn't expect society to bail you out. At least a couple mentioned euthanasia as a solution.") (Emphasis added).
In my law practice, I have had two clients whose parents signed up for the lethal dose.
In one case, one side of the family wanted the parent to take the lethal dose while the other did not. The parent spent the last months of his life traumatized and/or struggling over the decision of whether or not to kill himself. My client was also traumatized. The parent did not take the lethal dose and died a natural death
In the other case, it's unclear that the parent's death was voluntary. This was due to his reportedly refusing to take the lethal dose at his first suicide party and then being high on alcohol the next night when he drank the dose at a second party. (The person who told this to my client recanted). But, as a lawyer who has worked on divorce cases, I couldn't help but notice that if the parent's much younger wife had divorced him, the parent would have got the house. This way, the surviving wife got everything.
Meanwhile, my friends who provide elder care report that they now have to "guard" their clients in the hospital to avoid the initiation of "comfort care" (morphine overdose and the sudden death of the client). See e.g. http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2012/07/dear-montana-board-of-medical-examiners.html
Montana
In Montana, you have had similar developments. In 2007, the Baxter case was initiated seeking to legalize physician-assisted suicide for "terminally ill adult patients," the implication being that the practice would be limited to dying people. The proposed definition of "terminally ill adult patient," however, was broad enough to include an otherwise healthy 18 year old dependent on insulin. See http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/schrempp_wonderly_opn_ltr1.pdf
In late 2009, the Baxter opinion was issued in your Supreme Court ruling that doctors who assist a suicide in certain narrowly defined circumstances have a defense to prosecution if charged with homicide. Since then, I have been contacted by several Montanans describing the misuse or abuse of "comfort care" against their loved ones. Three of these persons have specifically endorsed HB 505, see for example, this letter by Carol Mungas, the widow of a prominent physician who was euthanized by nurses against his will. See http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2013/03/i-support-house-bill-505-which-clearly.html
Last month in the Senate Judiciary Committee, a doctor described his assisting three suicides in Montana. See http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013303260026
If he is not prosecuted, or if the prosecution fails, assisted suicides will thereby be encouraged and, given Washington's experience, there will be a push to expand the practice to less compelling cases, for example, persons with treatable diabetes. If, instead, HB 505 is enacted, there will be a clear statement going forward that assisted suicide is not legal in Montana.
This is why HB 505 is needed now.
Thank you for your consideration.
Margaret Dore
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.
Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation
www.margaretdore.com
www.choiceillusion.org
1001 4th Avenue, 44th Floor
Seattle, WA 98154
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Death by Dehydration and Starvation
Click here to view original letter.
My mother, Sharon Moe, was diagnosed with colon cancer in February of this year. After her surgery, I was told that she may be able to live for 6 months to 2 years. My mother was against assisted suicide and euthanasia and wanted to live as long as possible. She was placed back in the care of the nursing facility where hospice started to care for her. She was placed on a continual feed through a feeding tube because she was unable to take in anything orally due to her medical condition.
From the beginning, hospice wanted to stop the continual feed. My mother was adamant that she wanted to live and told the hospice nurse that she wanted to stay on the continual feed. My mother was able to converse and sit upright within a day or so after being taken back to the nursing facility. Her health was improving and she was doing really well after surgery despite the fact that she was underweight from not being able to eat.
The hospice nurse was still wanting to remove the continual feeding, even though my mother was doing well. My mother was able to tolerate the food and was not aspirating from it. The nurse placed a pain patch on my mother even though she wasn't in pain. They didnt ask her if she was in pain--they just administered the pain patch because she had a 'furrowed brow'. This pain patch caused my mother to hallucinate and be in a semi-comatose state. She was talkative and looking better before the patch was administered. After the patch had been in her system overnight, she started seeing things and was very scared.
My mother did not get the chance to live on longer as she had willed, but her death was hastened by dehydration and starvation after removing the continual feeding. My mother was not experiencing any pain and would tell someone if she had it....
Mike Moe, Great Falls Montana
My mother, Sharon Moe, was diagnosed with colon cancer in February of this year. After her surgery, I was told that she may be able to live for 6 months to 2 years. My mother was against assisted suicide and euthanasia and wanted to live as long as possible. She was placed back in the care of the nursing facility where hospice started to care for her. She was placed on a continual feed through a feeding tube because she was unable to take in anything orally due to her medical condition.
From the beginning, hospice wanted to stop the continual feed. My mother was adamant that she wanted to live and told the hospice nurse that she wanted to stay on the continual feed. My mother was able to converse and sit upright within a day or so after being taken back to the nursing facility. Her health was improving and she was doing really well after surgery despite the fact that she was underweight from not being able to eat.
The hospice nurse was still wanting to remove the continual feeding, even though my mother was doing well. My mother was able to tolerate the food and was not aspirating from it. The nurse placed a pain patch on my mother even though she wasn't in pain. They didnt ask her if she was in pain--they just administered the pain patch because she had a 'furrowed brow'. This pain patch caused my mother to hallucinate and be in a semi-comatose state. She was talkative and looking better before the patch was administered. After the patch had been in her system overnight, she started seeing things and was very scared.
My mother did not get the chance to live on longer as she had willed, but her death was hastened by dehydration and starvation after removing the continual feeding. My mother was not experiencing any pain and would tell someone if she had it....
Mike Moe, Great Falls Montana
Friday, March 8, 2013
"Because of my mother's experiences, I no longer believe in "physician-assisted suicide.' Support House Bill 505."
Family member's 'accidental' death provides example for opposition to assisted suicide
http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_2051b845-5a8d-5cdc-be0e-0b7bfbb5e2bf.html?comment_form=true
This letter is being written for a right to live. We taxpayers paid a phenomenal amount of money when others decided it was time for my mother to die. She would not die! Three times she defied attempts on her life, costing her bed sores, hospice and her daughter being arrested while helping her (the latter arrest record was dismissed).
Mom succumbed in the hospital on Sept. 6, 2010. The coroner's report case No. 100906 lists congestive heart failure with oxygen deprivation and fentanyl therapy. The manner of death: accident.
Fentanyl is reported "to be 80 to 200 times as potent as morphine." A fentanyl patch of 100 mcg/hour has a range within 24 hours of 1.9-3.8ng/mL. Mom's death result was 2.7 ng/mL on or about 48 hours.
Complaint No. 2012-069-MED was filed with the Montana Department of Labor and Industry Board of Medical Examiners. The screening panel voted to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, which means the board may not consider the complaint in the future.
Because of my mother's experiences, I no longer believe in "physician-assisted suicide." Support House Bill 505.
Gail Bell,
Bozeman
http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_2051b845-5a8d-5cdc-be0e-0b7bfbb5e2bf.html?comment_form=true
This letter is being written for a right to live. We taxpayers paid a phenomenal amount of money when others decided it was time for my mother to die. She would not die! Three times she defied attempts on her life, costing her bed sores, hospice and her daughter being arrested while helping her (the latter arrest record was dismissed).
Mom succumbed in the hospital on Sept. 6, 2010. The coroner's report case No. 100906 lists congestive heart failure with oxygen deprivation and fentanyl therapy. The manner of death: accident.
Fentanyl is reported "to be 80 to 200 times as potent as morphine." A fentanyl patch of 100 mcg/hour has a range within 24 hours of 1.9-3.8ng/mL. Mom's death result was 2.7 ng/mL on or about 48 hours.
Complaint No. 2012-069-MED was filed with the Montana Department of Labor and Industry Board of Medical Examiners. The screening panel voted to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, which means the board may not consider the complaint in the future.
Because of my mother's experiences, I no longer believe in "physician-assisted suicide." Support House Bill 505.
Gail Bell,
Bozeman
Sunday, March 3, 2013
More Big News From Montana! We Passed the House!
Last week, HB 505 passed the House!
So, now the former Hemlock Society is gearing up the misinformation campaign.
Will keep you posted!
Meanwhile, enjoy the victory!
Thank you to everyone who made this possible.
Thanks!
Margaret Dore
So, now the former Hemlock Society is gearing up the misinformation campaign.
Will keep you posted!
Meanwhile, enjoy the victory!
Thank you to everyone who made this possible.
Thanks!
Margaret Dore
Monday, December 31, 2012
"Assisted suicide in Washington and Oregon is a recipe for elder abuse and cloaked in secrecy"
http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/mailbag/oregon-washington-assisted-suicide-laws-include-no-protections-for-patients/article_074c4378-507b-11e2-8348-001a4bcf887a.html
By, Margaret Dore, Esq. Supporting documentation follows letter, below.
By, Margaret Dore, Esq. Supporting documentation follows letter, below.
Re: Susan Hancock, “Death with Dignity is about giving people choices" (Dec. 20, guest column):
I disagree with Susan Hancock’s description of how the Washington and Oregon assisted suicide laws work. I disagree that assisted suicide cannot be forced upon an unwilling person.
The Oregon and Washington assisted suicide acts have a formal application process. The acts allow an heir, who will benefit from the patient’s death, to actively participate in this process.
Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight. For example, there is no witness required at the death. Without disinterested witnesses, the opportunity is created for an heir, or for another person who will benefit from the patient’s death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent. One method would be by injection when the patient is sleeping. The drugs used in Oregon and Washington are water soluble and therefore injectable. If the patient woke up and struggled, who would know?
The Washington and Oregon acts require the state health departments to collect statistical information for the purpose of annual reports. According to these reports, users of assisted-suicide are overwhelmingly white and generally well-educated. Many have private insurance. Most are age 65 and older. Typically persons with these attributes are seniors with money, which would be the middle class and above, a group disproportionately at risk of financial abuse and exploitation.
The forms used to collect the statistical information do not ask about abuse. Moreover, not even law enforcement is allowed to access information about a particular case. Alicia Parkman a mortality research analyst at the Center for Health Statistics, Oregon Health Authority, wrote me: “We have been contacted by law enforcement and legal representatives in the past, but have not provided identifying information of any type.“
Assisted suicide in Washington and Oregon is a recipe for elder abuse and cloaked in secrecy. Don’t make our mistake.
Supporting documentation below.
Margaret Dore,
Seattle, Wash.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
"Compassion & Choices is a successor organization to the Hemlock Society"
http://helenair.com/news/opinion/readers_alley/assisted-suicide-law-could-lead-to-patient-mistreatment/article_32bac11c-4985-11e2-9338-0019bb2963f4.html?print=true&cid=print
12/19/12
Theresa Schrempp Seattle, Wash.
I am a lawyer in Washington State where assisted-suicide is legal. Robert Zimorino’s letter encourages readers to contact Compassion & Choices, a promoter of assisted-suicide (“aid in dying”).
Your readers should know that Compassion & Choices is a successor organization to the Hemlock Society, originally formed by Derek Humphry. In 2011, Humphry was the keynote speaker at Compassion & Choices’ annual meeting here in Washington State. In 2011, he was also in the news as a promoter of mail-order suicide kits from a company now shut down by the FBI.This was after a 29 year old man used one of the kits to commit suicide.
In 2007, Compassion & Choices was a plaintiff in Montana’s assisted-suicide case. Therein, Compassion & Choices requested legalization of assisted-suicide for “terminally ill adult patients.” The definition of this phrase was broad enough to include an otherwise healthy 18 year old who is insulin dependent or a young adult with stable HIV/AIDS. Such persons can live for decades with appropriate medical treatment.
Once someone is labeled “terminal,” an easy justification can be made that their treatment should be denied in favor of someone more deserving. Those who believe that legalizing assisted-suicide will promote free choice may discover that it does anything but.
In 2007, Compassion & Choices was a plaintiff in Montana’s assisted-suicide case. Therein, Compassion & Choices requested legalization of assisted-suicide for “terminally ill adult patients.” The definition of this phrase was broad enough to include an otherwise healthy 18 year old who is insulin dependent or a young adult with stable HIV/AIDS. Such persons can live for decades with appropriate medical treatment.
Once someone is labeled “terminal,” an easy justification can be made that their treatment should be denied in favor of someone more deserving. Those who believe that legalizing assisted-suicide will promote free choice may discover that it does anything but.
Supporting authority not included in the published letter, below:
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Montana Board Denies Hearing; New Legal Challenge Anticipated
On May 7, 2012, the Montana Board of Medical Examiners voted to postpone consideration of whether Position Statement No. 20 should be vacated.[1] Position Statement No. 20 concerns "aid in dying," a euphemism for assisted suicide and euthanasia.[2] The reasons given for the delay included "to allow additional time for public input."[3]
On July 6, 2012, Montanans Against Assisted Suicide filed additional "public input" including a letter and a legal memorandum titled: "Summary of Legal Arguments Requiring Position Statement No. 20 to be Vacated as a Matter of Law."[4] The letter requested twenty minutes oral argument.[5]
On July 20, 2012, the Board held the postponed hearing. The Board acknowledged that it had received the above documents and also acknowledged the presence of Cory Swanson, attorney for Montanans Against Assisted Suicide. The Board did not allow Mr. Swanson to speak.
On July 6, 2012, Montanans Against Assisted Suicide filed additional "public input" including a letter and a legal memorandum titled: "Summary of Legal Arguments Requiring Position Statement No. 20 to be Vacated as a Matter of Law."[4] The letter requested twenty minutes oral argument.[5]
On July 20, 2012, the Board held the postponed hearing. The Board acknowledged that it had received the above documents and also acknowledged the presence of Cory Swanson, attorney for Montanans Against Assisted Suicide. The Board did not allow Mr. Swanson to speak.
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Montanans Against Assisted Suicide Pushes Legal Challenge Forward
By Margaret Dore
July 6, 2012, Montanans Against Assisted Suicide (MAAS) filed documents with the Montana Medical Examiner Board for the purpose of vacating Position Statement No. 20, titled "Physician Aid in Dying." The documents filed included: "Summary of Legal Arguments Requiring Position Statement No. 20 to be Vacated as a Matter of Law," which states:
"Position Statement No. 20 puts physicians and/or the public at risk by encouraging them to engage in illegal and tortious conduct that could result in their being charged with a crime and/or sued. Statement No. 20 also puts vulnerable people at risk of being killed or steered to suicide by their heirs or predators. With these circumstances, the Board’s enactment of Statement No. 20 violates its duty to protect the public (and puts the Board itself at risk of liability)."
To view the above document in its entirety, read the text below or click here to read the hard copy filed with the Board. Other documents filed with the Board included a cover letter and a proposed order.
The Text:
1. On March 16, 2012, the Board adopted a revised version of Position Statement No. 20, which refers to “aid in dying” as a “medical procedure or intervention.”[1]
2. The term, “aid in dying,” means assisted suicide and euthanasia.[2]
3. On December 31, 2009, the Montana Supreme Court issued Baxter v. State, 354 Mont. 234 (2009), which addressed a narrow form of “aid in dying.” Baxter did not legalize “aid in dying,” although that fact is disputed by some proponents.[2]
4. Position Statement No. 20 implies that “aid in dying” is confined to “end-of-life” matters.[4] In Baxter, however, the plaintiffs sought to legalize assisted suicide for people who were not necessarily at the “end of life,” for example, an 18 year old who is insulin dependent.[5]
5. In the last [2011] legislative session, a bill seeking to legalize aid in dying, SB 167, was defeated.[6]
6. The Medical Examiner Board derives its power from the Administrative Procedure Act, §§ 2-4-101 to 2-4-711, MCA, and other statutes such as § 37-1-307, MCA, which defines the authority of Boards in general.[7] These statutes do not grant the Medical Examiner Board authority to interpret the meaning of a court decision such as Baxter.[8] These statutes do not grant the Board the power to enact new legislation, for example, to legalize “aid in dying” as a medical procedure or intervention.
7. Interpreting court decisions and enacting legislation are the province of the Judiciary and the Legislature, not the Board. With these circumstances, the Board had no authority to adopt Position Statement No. 20, which effectively interpreted Baxter and/or effectively enacted new legislation to legalize “aid in dying.” Position Statement 20 is null and void.
"Position Statement No. 20 puts physicians and/or the public at risk by encouraging them to engage in illegal and tortious conduct that could result in their being charged with a crime and/or sued. Statement No. 20 also puts vulnerable people at risk of being killed or steered to suicide by their heirs or predators. With these circumstances, the Board’s enactment of Statement No. 20 violates its duty to protect the public (and puts the Board itself at risk of liability)."
To view the above document in its entirety, read the text below or click here to read the hard copy filed with the Board. Other documents filed with the Board included a cover letter and a proposed order.
The Text:
1. On March 16, 2012, the Board adopted a revised version of Position Statement No. 20, which refers to “aid in dying” as a “medical procedure or intervention.”[1]
2. The term, “aid in dying,” means assisted suicide and euthanasia.[2]
3. On December 31, 2009, the Montana Supreme Court issued Baxter v. State, 354 Mont. 234 (2009), which addressed a narrow form of “aid in dying.” Baxter did not legalize “aid in dying,” although that fact is disputed by some proponents.[2]
4. Position Statement No. 20 implies that “aid in dying” is confined to “end-of-life” matters.[4] In Baxter, however, the plaintiffs sought to legalize assisted suicide for people who were not necessarily at the “end of life,” for example, an 18 year old who is insulin dependent.[5]
5. In the last [2011] legislative session, a bill seeking to legalize aid in dying, SB 167, was defeated.[6]
6. The Medical Examiner Board derives its power from the Administrative Procedure Act, §§ 2-4-101 to 2-4-711, MCA, and other statutes such as § 37-1-307, MCA, which defines the authority of Boards in general.[7] These statutes do not grant the Medical Examiner Board authority to interpret the meaning of a court decision such as Baxter.[8] These statutes do not grant the Board the power to enact new legislation, for example, to legalize “aid in dying” as a medical procedure or intervention.
7. Interpreting court decisions and enacting legislation are the province of the Judiciary and the Legislature, not the Board. With these circumstances, the Board had no authority to adopt Position Statement No. 20, which effectively interpreted Baxter and/or effectively enacted new legislation to legalize “aid in dying.” Position Statement 20 is null and void.
8. The Board’s lack of authority is a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and requires Position Statement No. 20 to be vacated to the extent that it purports to legalize “aid in dying” and/or refers to “aid in dying” as an “end-of-life” matter.
9. Position Statement No. 20 is also invalid and/or void in its entirety because it is a “rule” under the Administrative Procedure Act, which was adopted without attempting to comply with rulemaking procedures.[9]
10. Position Statement No. 20 is also invalid and/or void in its entirety because there was no oral argument scheduled for members of the public to speak prior to its enactment. § 2-4-302(4), MCA states: “If the proposed rulemaking involves matters of significant interest to the public, the agency shallschedule an oral hearing.” (Emphasis added). A matter is of “significant interest to the public” if the agency knows it “to be of widespread citizen interest.” In the case at hand, the record is overflowing with citizen input including more than 3000 signatures opposed to assisted suicide.[11] The Board knew of “widespread citizen interest” as a matter of law. The Board adopted Position Statement No. 20 without previously scheduling oral argument for the public. For this reason also, the statement is null and void.
11. Position Statement No. 20 is also null and void because it purports to expand a physician’s scope of practice to include “aid in dying.” This is the function of the Legislature, not the Board. Board of Optometry v. Florida Medical Association, 463 So.2d 1213, 1215 (1985).
12. Position Statement No. 20 puts physicians and/or the public at risk by encouraging them to engage in illegal and tortious conduct that could result in their being charged with a crime and/or sued. Statement No. 20 also puts vulnerable people at risk of being killed or steered to suicide by their heirs or predators. With these circumstances, the Board’s enactment of Statement No. 20 violates its duty to protect the public (and puts the Board itself at risk of liability).
13. For the above reasons, Position Statement No. 20 is null and void as a matter of law. It must be vacated and removed from the Board’s website."
[2] Model Aid-in-Dying Act, § 1-102(3), atwww.uiowa.edu/~sfklaw/euthan.html Note the letters “euthan” in the link.
[3] See Greg Jackson Esq. and Matt Bowman Esq., “Analysis of Implications of the Baxter Case on Potential Criminal Liability,” Spring 2010 (“the Court's narrow decision didn't even "legalize" assisted suicide”), available athttp://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/baxter-case-analysis.html; statement by Dr. Stephen Speckart conceding that assisted suicide is not legal under Baxter (“[M]ost physicians feel significant dis-ease with the limited safeguards and possible risk of criminal prosecution after the Baxter decision"), at [the following link with a similar statement by Senator Anders Blewett] http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/blewett_speckhart_trans_001.pdf; statement by Senator Anders Blewett conceding that a doctor who assisted a suicide could be prosecuted under the Baxter decision (“under current law, ... there’s nothing to protect the doctor from prosecution”), athttp://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/blewett_speckhart_trans_001.pdf; and The Montana Lawyer, November 2011 (featuring pro-con articles by Senator Blewett and Senator Jim Shockley), available athttp://www.montanabar.org/associations/7121/November%202011%20mt%20lawyer.pdf.
[4] Id.
[5] See opinion letter from attorney Theresa Schrempp and Dr. Richard Wonderly to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, October 22, 2009 (attaching the plaintiffs’ interrogatory answers with a definition of “terminally ill adult patient” broad enough to include “an 18 year old who is insulin dependent”). (Attached hereto at B-1 to B-3). [To view, click here]
[6] See Detailed bill information page, attached hereto at B-4. [To view, click here]
[7] For more information about the Administrative Procedure Act and other statutes, see Memorandum dated May 2, 2012, pp. 1-2, pp. 8-10. A copy of the Act and other statutes are attached thereto at A-1 through A-28
[8] Id.
[9] See Memorandum dated May 2, 2012, pp. 8-10. [To view citation, use link at note 7, above]
[10] § 2-4-102(12)(a).
[11] Memorandum dated May 2, 2012, p. 3; attachments at A-37 to A-45. [To view citations, use links at note 7, above]
9. Position Statement No. 20 is also invalid and/or void in its entirety because it is a “rule” under the Administrative Procedure Act, which was adopted without attempting to comply with rulemaking procedures.[9]
10. Position Statement No. 20 is also invalid and/or void in its entirety because there was no oral argument scheduled for members of the public to speak prior to its enactment. § 2-4-302(4), MCA states: “If the proposed rulemaking involves matters of significant interest to the public, the agency shallschedule an oral hearing.” (Emphasis added). A matter is of “significant interest to the public” if the agency knows it “to be of widespread citizen interest.” In the case at hand, the record is overflowing with citizen input including more than 3000 signatures opposed to assisted suicide.[11] The Board knew of “widespread citizen interest” as a matter of law. The Board adopted Position Statement No. 20 without previously scheduling oral argument for the public. For this reason also, the statement is null and void.
11. Position Statement No. 20 is also null and void because it purports to expand a physician’s scope of practice to include “aid in dying.” This is the function of the Legislature, not the Board. Board of Optometry v. Florida Medical Association, 463 So.2d 1213, 1215 (1985).
12. Position Statement No. 20 puts physicians and/or the public at risk by encouraging them to engage in illegal and tortious conduct that could result in their being charged with a crime and/or sued. Statement No. 20 also puts vulnerable people at risk of being killed or steered to suicide by their heirs or predators. With these circumstances, the Board’s enactment of Statement No. 20 violates its duty to protect the public (and puts the Board itself at risk of liability).
13. For the above reasons, Position Statement No. 20 is null and void as a matter of law. It must be vacated and removed from the Board’s website."
* * *
[1] The revised statement [titled Physician Aid in Dying] says: "The Montana Board of Medical Examiners has been asked if it will discipline physicians for participating in aid-in-dying. This statement reflects the Board’s position on this controversial question. [paragraph break] The Board recognizes that its mission is to protect the citizens of Montana against the unprofessional, improper, unauthorized and unqualified practice of medicine by ensuring that its licensees are competent professionals. 37-3-101, MCA. In all matters of medical practice, including end-of-life matters, physicians are held to professional standards. If the Board receives a complaint related to physician aid-in-dying, it will evaluate the complaint on its individual merits and will consider, as it would any other medical procedure or intervention, whether the physician engaged in unprofessional conduct as defined by the Board’s laws and rules pertinent to the Board." [To view the statement of the Board's website, click here.] [2] Model Aid-in-Dying Act, § 1-102(3), atwww.uiowa.edu/~sfklaw/euthan.html Note the letters “euthan” in the link.
[3] See Greg Jackson Esq. and Matt Bowman Esq., “Analysis of Implications of the Baxter Case on Potential Criminal Liability,” Spring 2010 (“the Court's narrow decision didn't even "legalize" assisted suicide”), available athttp://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/baxter-case-analysis.html; statement by Dr. Stephen Speckart conceding that assisted suicide is not legal under Baxter (“[M]ost physicians feel significant dis-ease with the limited safeguards and possible risk of criminal prosecution after the Baxter decision"), at [the following link with a similar statement by Senator Anders Blewett] http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/blewett_speckhart_trans_001.pdf; statement by Senator Anders Blewett conceding that a doctor who assisted a suicide could be prosecuted under the Baxter decision (“under current law, ... there’s nothing to protect the doctor from prosecution”), athttp://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/blewett_speckhart_trans_001.pdf; and The Montana Lawyer, November 2011 (featuring pro-con articles by Senator Blewett and Senator Jim Shockley), available athttp://www.montanabar.org/associations/7121/November%202011%20mt%20lawyer.pdf.
[4] Id.
[5] See opinion letter from attorney Theresa Schrempp and Dr. Richard Wonderly to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, October 22, 2009 (attaching the plaintiffs’ interrogatory answers with a definition of “terminally ill adult patient” broad enough to include “an 18 year old who is insulin dependent”). (Attached hereto at B-1 to B-3). [To view, click here]
[6] See Detailed bill information page, attached hereto at B-4. [To view, click here]
[7] For more information about the Administrative Procedure Act and other statutes, see Memorandum dated May 2, 2012, pp. 1-2, pp. 8-10. A copy of the Act and other statutes are attached thereto at A-1 through A-28
[8] Id.
[9] See Memorandum dated May 2, 2012, pp. 8-10. [To view citation, use link at note 7, above]
[10] § 2-4-102(12)(a).
[11] Memorandum dated May 2, 2012, p. 3; attachments at A-37 to A-45. [To view citations, use links at note 7, above]
Sunday, July 1, 2012
False & Misleading "Aid in dying" Letter
Below, a letter to physicians responding to a prior "false and misleading" letter claiming that assisted suicide is legal in Montana. To see a hard copy of this letter as sent, click here.
Dear Physician:
I represent Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity. You may have received a letter from Compassion & Choices, formerly known as the Hemlock Society, dated June 5, 2012. The letter claims that assisted suicide, referred to as "aid in dying," is legal under the Baxter decision issued by the Montana Supreme Court on December 31, 2009. This is untrue. I urge you to read the materials below or contact your own counsel for advice regarding the court's decision in Baxter.
Dear Physician:
I represent Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity. You may have received a letter from Compassion & Choices, formerly known as the Hemlock Society, dated June 5, 2012. The letter claims that assisted suicide, referred to as "aid in dying," is legal under the Baxter decision issued by the Montana Supreme Court on December 31, 2009. This is untrue. I urge you to read the materials below or contact your own counsel for advice regarding the court's decision in Baxter.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Montana: Board Statement Null & Void
Today, Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity filed a request with the Montana Board of Medical Examiners to vacate its recent position statement, which misstates the Baxter decision and erroneously implies that assisted suicide is legal in Montana. This request is brought for the sake of public safety.
To view the cover letter by attorney Craig D. Charlton, click here. To view his legal memorandum, click here. To view the attachments to that memorandum, click here.
To view the cover letter by attorney Craig D. Charlton, click here. To view his legal memorandum, click here. To view the attachments to that memorandum, click here.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Montana Bar Article by Senator Jim Shockley and Margaret Dore
"No, physician-assisted suicide is not legal in Montana:
It's a recipe for elder abuse and more" [1]
By State Senator Jim Shockley and Margaret Dore
Published in The Montana Lawyer, the official
publication of the State Bar of Montana.
Published in The Montana Lawyer, the official
publication of the State Bar of Montana.
There are two states where physician-assisted suicide is legal: Oregon and Washington. These states have statutes that give doctors and others who participate in a qualified patient’s suicide immunity from criminal and civil liability. (ORS 127.800-995 and RCW 70.245).
Monday, October 17, 2011
Massachusetts: Assisted Suicide is a Recipe for Elder Abuse; Do not be Deceived
By Margaret Dore
Physician-assisted suicide is legal in just two states: Oregon and Washington.[2] In both states, acts to legalize the practice were enacted via sound-bite ballot initiative campaigns.[3] No such law has made it through the scrutiny of a legislature. Just this year, bills to legalize assisted suicide were defeated in Montana, New Hampshire and Hawaii.[4] Just this year, Idaho enacted a statute to strengthen its law against assisted suicide.[5]
The proposed Massachusetts act is a recipe for elder abuse. Key provisions include that an heir, who will benefit financially from a patient's death, is allowed to participate as a witness to help sign the patient up for the lethal dose. See Section 21 of the act, allowing one of two witnesses on the lethal dose request form to be an heir, available here. This situation invites undue influence and coercion.
Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight. See entire proposed act, available here. The act does not require witnesses when the lethal dose is administered. See act here. Without disinterested witnesses, an opportunity is created for an heir, or another person who will benefit from the patient's death, to administer the lethal dose to him without his consent. Even if he struggled who would know?
In Massachusetts, proponents are framing the issue as religious. In Washington state, proponents used a similar tactic and even religious slurs to distract voters from the pitfalls of legalization. What the proposed law said and did was all but forgotten.
* * *
Margaret Dore is an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. She is also President of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide. Her publications include Margaret K. Dore, "Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Recipe for Elder Abuse and the Illusion of Personal Choice," The Vermont Bar Journal, Winter 2011.* * *
[1] To view the proposed Massachusetts initiative, click here: http://www.mass.gov/Cago/docs/Government/2011-Petitions/11-12.pdf
[2] In Montana, there is a court decision that gives doctors who cause or aid a suicide, a potential defense to criminal prosecution for homicide. The decision does not legalize assisted suicide by giving doctors or anyone else immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability. To learn more, go here: http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/baxter-case-analysis.html The assisted suicide promotion group, Compassion & Choices, has a new campaign claiming that assisted suicide is "already legal" in Hawaii. This is an odd claim given that bills to legalize assisted suicide in Hawaii have repeatedly failed, most recently this year. See here for the most recent bill: http://capitol.hawaii.gov/Archives/measure_indiv_Archives.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=803&year=2011
[3] Oregon's physician-assisted suicide act was enacted via Ballot Measure 16. Washington's act was enacted via Initiative 1000.
[4] In Montana, SB 167 was tabled in Committee and subsequently died on April 28, 2011. In New Hampshire, HB 513 was defeated on March 16, 2011. In Hawaii, SB 803 was defeated on February 7, 2011 .
[5] On July 1 2011, Idaho's new statute strengthening Idaho law against assisted suicide went into effect: http://www.choiceillusionidaho.org/2011/07/idaho-strengthens-law.html
[2] In Montana, there is a court decision that gives doctors who cause or aid a suicide, a potential defense to criminal prosecution for homicide. The decision does not legalize assisted suicide by giving doctors or anyone else immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability. To learn more, go here: http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/baxter-case-analysis.html The assisted suicide promotion group, Compassion & Choices, has a new campaign claiming that assisted suicide is "already legal" in Hawaii. This is an odd claim given that bills to legalize assisted suicide in Hawaii have repeatedly failed, most recently this year. See here for the most recent bill: http://capitol.hawaii.gov/Archives/measure_indiv_Archives.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=803&year=2011
[3] Oregon's physician-assisted suicide act was enacted via Ballot Measure 16. Washington's act was enacted via Initiative 1000.
[4] In Montana, SB 167 was tabled in Committee and subsequently died on April 28, 2011. In New Hampshire, HB 513 was defeated on March 16, 2011. In Hawaii, SB 803 was defeated on February 7, 2011 .
[5] On July 1 2011, Idaho's new statute strengthening Idaho law against assisted suicide went into effect: http://www.choiceillusionidaho.org/2011/07/idaho-strengthens-law.html
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Montana Propaganda: Baxter & Assisted Suicide
By Margaret Dore, Esq.
A.
There are just two states where physician-assisted suicide is legal: Oregon and Washington. These states have statutes that give doctors and others who participate in a qualified patient’s suicide, immunity from criminal and civil liability. (ORS 127.800-995 and RCW 70.245).
In Montana, by contrast, the law on assisted suicide is governed by the Montana Supreme Court decision, Baxter v. State, 354 Mont. 234 (2009). Baxter gives doctors who assist a suicide a potential defense to criminal prosecution. Baxter does not legalize assisted suicide by giving doctors or anyone else immunity from criminal and civil liability. Under Baxter, a doctor cannot be assured that a particular suicide will qualify for the defense.
B. The Baxter Decision is Wrong
Baxter found that there was no indication in Montana law that physician-assisted suicide, which the Court termed “aid in dying,” is against public policy. (354 Mont. at 240, ¶¶ 13, 49-50). Based on this finding, the Court held that a patient’s consent to assisted suicide “constitutes a statutory defense to a charge of homicide against the aiding physician.” (Id. at 251, ¶ 50).
Baxter, however, overlooked caselaw imposing civil liability on persons who cause or fail to prevent a suicide. See e.g., Krieg v. Massey, 239 Mont. 469, 472-3 (1989) and Nelson v. Driscoll, 295 Mont. 363, ¶¶ 32-33 (1999). Baxter also overlooked elder abuse. The Court stated that the only person “who might conceivably be prosecuted for criminal behavior is the physician who prescribes a lethal dose of medication.” (354 Mont. at 239, ¶ 11). The Court thereby overlooked criminal behavior by family members and others who benefit from a patient’s death, for example, due to an inheritance.
The Baxter decision is fundamentally flawed and wrong.
C. Doctors are not "Safe" Under Baxter
Baxter is a narrow decision via which doctors cannot be assured that a particular suicide will qualify for the defense. Attorneys Greg Jackson and Matt Bowman provide this analysis:
"If the patient is less than 'conscious,' is unable to 'vocalize' his decision, or gets help because he is unable to 'self-administer,' or the drug fails and someone helps complete the killing, Baxter would not apply. . . .
http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/baxter-case-analysis.html
Even if a doctor "beats the rap" on prosecution, there is the issue of civil liability. See Krieg and Nelson, supra. Like O.J. Simpson, a doctor who escapes criminal liability could find himself sued by a family member upset that he "killed mom." The doctor could be held liable for civil damages.
* * *
Margaret Dore is President of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted-suicide. (www.choiceillusion.org) She is also an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-coombs-lee/aid-in-dying-montana_b_960555.html
* * *
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-coombs-lee/aid-in-dying-montana_b_960555.html
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Barbara Coombs Lee Renews Plea to Eliminate Oregon Reporting Consistent with Elder Abuse
By Margaret Dore
Choices made in Montana before its proposed bill to legalize assisted suicide was defeated last February.
The reporting in question is consistent with elder abuse, i.e., of people with money. This quote is from my memo against Compassion & Choices' bill, SB 167:
"Doctor reporting is . . . eliminated. The former Hemlock Society, Compassion & Choices, claims that this is because Oregon’s reporting system has “demonstrated the safety of the practice.” To the contrary, Oregon’s reports support that the claimed safety is speculative. The reported statistics are also consistent with elder abuse. No wonder Compassion & Choices wants the reporting system gone." (Footnotes omitted).
To view the entire memo, click here.
To view the entire memo, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)