Montana's Law Protected Me

Lucinda Hardy

I [Lucinda Hardy] have read the guest column, "People living with disabilities support death with dignity" (July 25), which advocates for legalizing assisted suicide and/or euthanasia for the disabled. I could be described as such a person and this opinion does not speak for me. I am strongly against legalizing these practices.

When I was in high school, I was on track to get a basketball scholarship to college. And then, I was in a car accident. The accident left me in a wheelchair, a quadriplegic. In addition to my paralysis, I had other difficulties. Over the next two or three years, I gave serious thought to suicide. And I had the means to do it, but both times I got close, I stopped myself.

Vermont: Repeal physician-assisted suicide, now

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/opinion/comment-debate/2014/07/30/repeal-physician-assisted-suicide-now/13334997/

I'm confused. Years ago we did away with the death penalty in Vermont (and rightly so) because we understood that despite the care and precision of our legal system, mistakes could be made and an innocent person could be wrongly put to death. The Legislature wasn't willing to take that chance and so abolished the death penalty.

Now we have Act 39 (physician-assisted suicide), another law whose only purpose is to result in the death of one of our citizens. Yet this law, with shockingly few protections and no oversight at all by our judicial system, passed the Legislature.

What is the difference here? A wrongful death is a wrongful death is a wrongful death.

Does the Legislature honestly believe our health care system is so perfect that there is absolutely no chance for error? It doesn't appear so since the Legislature is spending almost all their time trying to reform health care. That doesn't leave me feeling confident that the system is working 100 percent perfectly.

So, if the death penalty is wrong because an innocent person might die, why does the Legislature magically believe that no one will ever wrongfully die under Act 39?

Physician-assisted suicide is just as bad a law as the death penalty, and the Legislature needs to repeal it.

Now!

Michele Morin lives in Burlington.

Connecticut Bill Dead!

Assisted suicide bill won't be voted on

[For a legal and policy analysis against the bill, please click here]

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, March 25, 2014 - 7:32 pm EDT

http://www.therepublic.com/w/CT--Assisted-Suicide

HARTFORD, Connecticut — A bill that would allow Connecticut physicians to prescribe medication to help terminally ill patients end their lives won't be voted on during this year's legislative session, the co-chairman of the General Assembly's Public Health Committee said Tuesday.

Windham Rep. Susan Johnson said Tuesday there is not enough time to address various outstanding issues with the bill. This year's short legislative session ends May 7.

"We worked very hard on that bill and there's a lot of work left to do," Johnson said.

This marks the second year in a row that the Public Health Committee has held a public hearing on such legislation and committee members did not take a vote.

Johnson said the Judiciary Committee is better suited to tackle certain outstanding issues with the bill, such as determining a patient's competency, whether they're under any duress, and how they can be protected from people with criminal intentions.

"Those kinds of things need to be ironed out," she said.

Proponents vowed to return with another bill next year, when there will be a longer legislative session.

"I'm very sorry that we're not able to move the bill further this year," said Rep. Betsy Ritter, D-Waterford. "We heard from people who wanted it badly."

Ritter said she was pleased, however, by the attention paid to the issue this year, adding how "the discussion just exploded across the state." Tim Appleton, the state director of the advocacy group Compassion and Choices, said he expects support will grow more between now and next year's legislative session.

Opponents have questioned the level of support for the bill, claiming outside groups are pushing the issue in Connecticut. They've vowed to fight future bills.

"The collateral damage from legalizing assisted suicide — including massive elder abuse, the deadly mix with a cost-cutting health care system steering people to suicide, misdiagnosis and incorrect prognosis, suicide contagion, and disability discrimination in suicide prevention — is simply not fixable," said Stephen Mendelsohn, of Second Thoughts Connecticut.

Concerns about assisted suicide include hiding malpractice and "lazy doctoring."

http://helenair.com/news/opinion/readers_alley/against-physician-assisted-suicide/article_7b17e3b6-9b57-11e3-ab51-001a4bcf887a.html

I am a general medical practitioner, with 30 years experience. I was glad to see that Montanans Against Assisted Suicide has decided to appeal its case with the Montana Medical Examiner Board to the Montana Supreme Court. My hope is that the appeal will end the controversy about assisted suicide possibly being legal in Montana.

My concerns about legalizing assisted suicide include that it will encourage "lazy doctoring." I say this because it is easier for a doctor to write a prescription (to end the patient's life,) as opposed to doing the sometimes hard work of figuring out what is wrong with a patient and providing treatment. I am also concerned that legalization will give bad doctors the opportunity to hide malpractice by convincing a patient to take his or her life.

The American Medical Association, Ethics Opinion No. 2.211, states: "Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks."

I agree with this statement. Allowing legalization of physician-assisted suicide in Montana will compromise and corrupt my profession. Legalization will also put the lives and well-being of my patients at risk.

Carley C. Robertson, MD
Havre MT

Preventing Abuse and Exploitation: A Personal Shift in Focus. An article about guardianship, elder abuse and assisted suicide.

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/voice_of_experience/2014/winter/preventing_abuse_and_exploitationa_personal_shift_focus.html

http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/dore-preventing-abuse-and-exploitation-aba.pdf

By Margaret K. Dore, Esq., MBA

The Voice of Experience, American Bar Association

Volume 25, No. 4, Winter 2014

I graduated from law school in 1986.  I first worked for the courts and then for the United States Department of Justice.  After that, I worked for other lawyers, and then, in 1994, I officially started my own practice in Washington State.  Like many lawyers with a new practice, I signed up for court-appointed work in the guardianship/probate context.  This was mostly guardian ad litem work.  Once in awhile, I was appointed as an attorney for a proposed ward, termed an “alleged incapacitated person.”  In other states, a guardianship might be called a “conservatorship” or an “interdiction.”  A guardian ad litem might be called a “court visitor.”

My Guardianship Cases

Most of my guardianship cases were straightforward.  There would typically be a elderly person who could no longer handle his or her affairs.  I would be the guardian ad litem.  My job would be to determine whether the person needed a guardian, and if that were the case, to recommend a person or agency to fill that role.

My work also included private pay cases with moderate estates.  With these cases, I would sometimes see financial abuse and exploitation.  For example, there was an elderly woman whose nephew took her to the bank each week to obtain a large cash withdrawal.  She had dementia, but she could pass as “competent” to get the money.  In another case, “an old friend from 30 years ago” took “Jim,” a 90 year old man, to lunch.  The friend invited Jim to live with him in exchange for making the friend sole beneficiary of his will.  Jim agreed.  The will was executed and he went to live with the friend in a nearby town.  A guardianship was started and I was appointed guardian ad litem.  I drove to the friend’s house, which was dilapidated.  Jim did not seem to have his own room.  I asked him if he would like to go home.  He said “yes” and got in my car.  He was not incompetent, but he had allowed someone else to take advantage of him.  In another case, there was a disabled man whose caregiver had used his credit card to remodel her home.  He too was competent, but he had been unable to protect himself.

In those first few years, I loved my guardianship cases.  I had been close to my grandmother and enjoyed working with older people.  I met guardians and other people who genuinely wanted to help others.

But then I got a case involving a competent man who had been railroaded into guardianship.  The guardian, a company, refused to let him out.  The guardian also appeared to be churning the case, i.e., causing conflict and then billing for work to respond to the conflict and/or to cause more conflict.  I have an accounting background and also saw markers of embezzlement.  I tried to tell the court, but the supervising commissioner didn’t know much about accounting.  She allowed the guardian to hire its own CPA to investigate the situation, which predictably exonerated the guardian.  The guardian had many cases and if what I said had been proved true, there would have been political fallout.  There were also conflicts of interest among the lawyers.

At this point, the scales began to fall from my eyes.  My focus started to shift from working within the system to seeing how the system itself sometimes facilitates abuse.  This led me to write articles addressing some of the system’s flaws.  See e.g., Margaret K. Dore, Ten Reasons People Get Railroaded into Guardianship, 21 AM. J. FAM. L. 148 (2008), available at www.margaretdore.com/pdf/Dore_AJFL_Winter08.pdf; Margaret K. Dore, The Time is Now: Guardians Should be Licensed and Regulated Under the Executive Branch, Not the Courts, WASH. ST. B. ASS’N B. NEWS, Mar. 2007 at 27-9, available at http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/dore-the-time-is-now-ashx.pdf

The MetLife Studies 

In 2009, the MetLife Mature Market Institute released its landmark study on elder financial abuse. See https://www.giaging.org/documents/mmi-study-broken-trust-elders-family-finances.pdf  The estimated financial loss by victims in the United States was $2.6 billion per year.

The study also explained that perpetrators are often family members, some of whom feel themselves “entitled” to the elder’s assets.  The study states that perpetrators start out with small crimes, such as stealing jewelry and blank checks, before moving on to larger items or coercing elders to sign over the deeds to their homes, change their wills or liquidate their assets.

In 2011, Met Life released another study available at www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/2011/mmi-elder-financial-abuse.pdf, which described how financial abuse can be catalyst for other types of abuse and which was illustrated by the following example.  “A woman barely came away with her life after her caretaker of four years stole money from her and pushed her wheelchair in front of a train.  After the incident the woman said, “We were so good of friends . . . I’m so hurt that I can’t stop crying.”

Failure to Report

A big reason that elder abuse and exploitation are prevalent is that victims do not report.  This failure to report can be for many reasons.  A mother being abused by her son might not want him to go to jail.  She might also be humiliated, ashamed or embarrassed about what’s happening.  She might be legitimately afraid that if she reveals the abuse, she will be put under guardianship.

The statistics that I’ve seen on unreported cases vary, from only 2 in 4 cases being reported, to one in 20 cases.  Elder abuse and exploitation are, regardless, a largely uncontrolled problem.

A New Development: Legalized Assisted Suicide

Another development relevant to abuse and exploitation is the ongoing push to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in the United States.  “Assisted suicide” means that someone provides the means and/or information for another person to commit suicide.  If the assisting person is a physician who prescribes a lethal dose, a more precise term is “physician-assisted suicide.”  “Euthanasia,” by contrast, is the direct administration of a lethal agent with the intent to cause another person’s death.

In the United States, physician-assisted suicide is legal in three states:  Oregon, Washington and Vermont.  Eligible patients are required to be “terminal,” which means having less than six months to live.  Such patients, however, are not necessarily dying.  One reason is because expectations of life expectancy can be wrong.  Treatment can also lead to recovery.  I have a friend who was talked out of using Oregon’s law in 2000.  Her doctor, who did not believe in assisted suicide, convinced her to be treated instead.  She is still alive today, 13 years later.

Oregon’s law was enacted by a ballot measure in 1997.  Washington’s law was passed by another measure in 2008 and went into effect in 2009.  Vermont’s law was enacted on May 20, 2013.  All three laws are a recipe for abuse.  Onw reason is that they allow someone else to talk for the patient during the lethal dose request process.  Moreover, once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight over administration.  Even if the patient struggled, who would know? [See e.g., http://www.choiceillusion.org/2013/11/quick-facts-about-assisted-suicide_11.html]

Here in Washington State, we have already had informal proposals to expand our law to non-terminal people.  The first time I saw this was in a newspaper article in 2011.  More recently, there was a newspaper column suggesting euthanasia “if you couldn’t save enough money to see yourself through your old age,” which would be involuntary euthanasia.  Prior to our law being passed, I never heard anyone talk like this.

I have written multiple articles discussing problems with legalization, including Margaret K. Dore, "Death with Dignity”: What Do We Advise Our Clients?," King Co. B. ASS’N, B. BuLL., May 2009, available at  www.kcba.org/newsevents/barbulletin/BView.aspx?Month=05&Year=2009&AID=article5.htm; Margaret K. Dore, Aid in Dying: Not Legal in Idaho; Not About Choice, 52 THE ADVOCATE [the official publication of the Idaho State Bar] 9, 18-20 (Sept. 2013) available at www.margaretdore.com/pdf/Not_Legal_in_Idaho.pdf  

My Cases Involving the Oregon and Washington Assisted Suicide Laws

I have had two clients whose parents signed up for the lethal dose.  In the first case, one side of the family wanted the father to take the lethal dose, while the other did not.  He  spent the last months of his life caught in the middle and traumatized over whether or not he should kill himself.  My client, his adult daughter, was also traumatized.  The father did not take the lethal dose and died a natural death.

In the other case, it's not clear that administration of the lethal dose was voluntary.  A man who was present told my client that the father refused to take the lethal dose when it was  delivered (“You’re not killing me.  I’m going to bed”), but then took it the next night when he was high on alcohol.  The man who told this to my client later recanted.  My client did not want to pursue the matter further.

Conclusion

In my guardianship cases, people were financially abused and sometimes treated terribly, but nobody died and sometimes we were able to make their lives much better.  With legal assisted suicide, the abuse is final.  Don’t make Washinton’s mistake.

Margaret K. Dore (margaretdore@margaretdore.com) JD, MBA, is an attorney in private practice in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.  She is a former Law Clerk to the Washington State Supreme Court and the Washington State Court of Appeals.  She worked for a year with the U.S. Department of Justice and is president of Choice is an Illusion, www.choiceillusion.org, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Oregon's new assisted suicide report: chronic conditions; people with money and more

By Margaret Dore, Esq.
Updated February 19, 2014

Oregon's assisted suicide report for 2013 has been released to the public.[1]  Per the report, the number of deaths from ingesting a lethal dose is low when compared to overall deaths, just 71 out of 32,475 total.[2] The report is nonetheless significant for the following reasons.

Per the report, some people who died from a lethal dose under Oregon's assisted suicide act had chronic conditions such as diabetes.[3] People with these conditions, and other conditions such as cancer, can have years to live.[4]  Jeanette Hall, the woman in the photo, had cancer and was talked out of assisted suicide 13 years ago.[5]  Her doctor convinced her to be treated instead.[6] Legalization, regardless, encourages people with years to live to throw away their lives.

Per the report, most of the people who died from a lethal dose were white, aged 65 or older, and well-educated. See note [7].  People with these attributes are typically well off, i.e., the middle class and above.  The report's introduction implies that their deaths were voluntary, stating that Oregon's act "allows" residents to obtain a lethal dose for self-administration.  There is, however, nothing in the report stating that the specific deaths described in the report were self-administered and/or voluntary.[8] Older well-off people are, regardless, in a vulnerable demographic for abuse and exploitation.  This includes murder.  A 2009 MetLife Mature Market Institute Study states:

"Elders’ vulnerabilities and larger net worth make them a prime target for financial abuse . . . Victims may even be murdered by perpetrators who just want their funds and see them as an easy mark."[9]

Oregon's act was passed in 1997.[10]  Just three later, Oregon's suicide rate for other suicides was "increasing significantly."[11]  Last year, an article in Oregon's largest paper reported:

"New figures show a sharp rise in suicides among middle-aged Americans, and an even bigger increase in Oregon. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report shows suicides among men and women aged 35-64 increased 49 percent in Oregon from 1999-2010, compared to 28 percent nationally."[12] 

This "significant increase" is consistent with a suicide contagion in which legalizing one type of suicide encouraged other suicides.[13]

The new Oregon report also lists "concerns" as to why the people who died requested the lethal dose.[14]  The data for these concerns is originally generated by the prescribing doctor who uses a check-the-box form developed by suicide proponents.[15] One listed concern is "inadequate pain control or concern about it."[16]  There is, however, no claim that anyone who ingested the lethal dose was actually in pain.[17]

A copy of Oregon's new report can be viewed at this link: http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/year16-2013.pdf  For more information, please see the footnotes below.

Margaret Dore is an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.  She is President of Choice is an Illusion, a human rights organization opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia.  She is one of the attorneys of record in the Montana assisted suicide case, Montanans Against Assisted Suicide (MAAS) v. Montana Board of Medical Examiners.  The case has already resulted in the removal of an official policy statement implying that assisted suicide is legal in Montana.  For more information, please click here.  Funds are needed for an upcoming appeal to the Montana Supreme Court.  Please consider a generous donation to MAAS and/or Choice is an Illusion, by clicking here and/or here. Thank you.

[1]  Oregon's Death with Dignity Act-2013, available at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/year16-2013.pdf
[2]  Id., Report, page 2, first paragraph and footnote 1.
[3]  Id., Report, page 6 (underlying illness, listing chronic conditions such as "chronic lower respiratory disease" and "other illnesses"). See also page 7, footnote 6 (listing "diabetes mellitus").
[4]  See e.g., Opinion letter of and Dr. Richard Wonderly and Attorney Theresa Schrempp (regarding a young adult with diabetes and other chronic conditions such as HIV/AIDS, "each of these patients could live for decades"), available at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/schrempp_wonderly_opn_ltr1.pdf
[5]  See Affidavit of Ken Stevens MD, available at: http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/signed-stevens-aff-9-18-12-as-filed.pdf  See also, Affidavit of Jeanette Hall, available at:  http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/jeanette-hall-affidavit.pdf
[6]  Id.
[7]  Report at note 1, page 2, last full paragraph.
[8]  Id..As a further explanation, the report page 1 says that Oregon's Act (DWDA) "allows" terminally ill Oregonians to self-administer the lethal dose.  Nothing says that administration "must" be by self-administration.  Self-administration can also be non-voluntary, for example, if the patient was under a threat of harm to a pet, or incapacitated, say due to alcohol. The rest of the report, pages 2-7 talks about the patient's "ingestion" of the lethal dose, which could also be voluntary, non-voluntary or involuntary. For more information about the term "ingestion," see Margaret K. Dore, "'Death with Dignity': What Do We Advise Our Clients?," King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, May 2009, at https://www.kcba.org/newsevents/barbulletin/BView.aspx?Month=05&Year=2009&AID=article5.htm. See also Margaret Dore, "'Death with Dignity': A Recipe for Elder Abuse and Homicide (Albeit not by Name)," Marquette Elder's Advisor, Vol. 11, No. 2, Spring 2010, pp. 391-2, available at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/dore-marquette-law-review-article.pdf
[9]  MetLife, "Broken Trust: Elders, Family and Finances," 2009, at https://www.metlife.com/mmi/research/broken-trust-elder-abuse.html#findings
[10]  Oregon's Death with Dignity Act Report at note 1, supra, page 2, paragraph 2.
[11]  News Release, "Rising suicide rate in Oregon reaches higher than national average," Christine Stone, Oregon Public Health Information Officer, Oregon Health Authority, September 9, 2010.
http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/rising-suicide-rate-in-oregon.pdf
[12]  David Stabler, "Why Oregon's suicide rate is among highest in the country, " The Oregonian, May 15, 2013, at http://blog.oregonlive.com/living_impact/print.html?entry=/2013/05/why_oregons_suicide_rate_is_am.html
[13]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_contagion
[14]  Report at note 1, page 6 (middle of page)
[15]  The check-the-box form is Question 15 of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act Attending Physician Follow-up Form, page 5, available at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/attending-physician-follow-up-form.pdf
[16]  Report at note 1, page 6 (middle of page).
[17]  Id, entire report.

"It wasn't the father saying that he wanted to die"

My wife and I operate two adult family homes in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. I am writing to urge you to not make Washington's mistake.

Our assisted suicide law was passed via a ballot initiative in November 2008. During the election, that law was promoted as a right of individual people to make their own choices. That has not been our experience. We have also noticed a shift in the attitudes of doctors and nurses towards our typically elderly clients, to eliminate their choices.

Four days after the election, an adult child of one of our clients asked about getting the pills (to kill the father). It wasn't the father saying that he wanted to die.

Since the act passed, we have also noticed that some members of the medical profession are quick to bring out the morphine to begin comfort care without considering treatment. Sometimes they do this on their own without telling the client and/or the family member in charge of the client's care.

Since our law was passed, I have also observed that some medical professionals are quick to write off older people as having no quality of life whereas in years past, most of the professionals we dealt with found joy in caring for them. Our clients reciprocated that joy and respect.

Someday, we too will be old. I, personally, want to be cared for and have my choices respected. I, for one, am quite uncomfortable with these developments. Don't make our mistake.

Juan Carlos Benedetto

Maine House Says No to Physician-Assisted Suicide (95-43)

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/05/31/politics/maine-house-says-no-to-physician-assisted-suicide-law/print/

 

By Matthew Stone, BDN Staff

 

Posted May 31, 2013, at 3 p.m.

 

AUGUSTA, Maine — The Maine House on Friday rejected a bill that would allow terminally ill patients to order lethal doses of medication from their doctors. The bill also would free doctors from legal liability for helping to end a consenting patient’s life.

House members voted 95-43 against the measure, which is sponsored by Rep. Joseph Brooks, an independent from Winterport. The bill next heads to the Senate.

Brooks’ bill, LD 1065, would allow a patient and his or her doctor to sign companion end-of-life care agreements. Those agreements would be signed after the two have discussed the patient’s medical condition and treatment options and the patient has rejected life-extending treatments and agreed to accept “care that is ordered or delivered by the physician that may hasten or bring about the patient’s death.”

The bill also would free doctors from criminal liability or the possibility of professional discipline for helping a consenting patient end his or her life.

The vote followed an emotional debate on the House floor in which lawmakers described their experiences caring for parents and friends as their lives ended.

Brooks said ill patients should be able to decide to end their lives when they can die in dignity.

“Dignity was important to this mill laborer,” he said of his father. “Had he been aware that he was lying in a hospital bed in the living room of his home not in control of anything, he would have probably said, ‘Please help me with this.’”

“How many of us have lost or seen others lose loved ones who linger painfully and unnecessarily for long periods?” asked Rep. Roberta Beavers, D-South Berwick. “We treat ill pets more humanely than we treat ill parents.”

But in letting doctors administer lethal doses of medication, the assisted-suicide bill would go too far, said Rep. Ann Dorney, D-Norridgewock. End-of-life care has changed for the better in recent years, said Dorney, a physician.

“We have very good end-of-life care. We have very good hospice care. We have very good palliative care,” she said. “I guess I’m not sure we need this bill.”

Dorney also worried about the prospect of a guardian who makes medical decisions for a patient making the decision to end that patient’s life.

Rep. Deborah Sanderson, R-Chelsea, said she wouldn’t want to rob a patient of a natural end to life.

“I sat with my mom the last five days of her life. I slept in a wheelchair by her bed,” Sanderson said. “The night before my mother passed, my mother said, ‘It’s not like what I thought it would be.’ She said, ‘It’s peaceful.’ And I was very glad to hear that.”

The Maine House’s rejection of the physician-assisted suicide legislation came more than a week after Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin signed a similar measure into law in that state. Vermont’s law was the first in the nation to be approved through the legislative process.

Physician-assisted suicide measures on the books in Oregon and Washington passed through public votes.

In Maine, voters rejected a physician-assisted suicide ballot measure in 1990.

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/05/31/politics/maine-house-says-no-to-physician-assisted-suicide-law/ printed on June 2, 2013

Vermont: Vote "NO" on New Senate Version of S.77, Passed May 8, 2013

This memo to the Vermont House of Representatives details some of the major flaws of the amended version of S.77 passed by the Senate on May 8, 2013.  To view the memo's index and text,  click here  To see the attachments, click here .  Below is the memo's text:


I. OVERVIEW

I am an attorney in Washington State where physician-assisted suicide is legal.[1]  Our law is similar to S.77, which seeks to legalize physician-assisted suicide.[2]  Moreover, it’s well known that financial reasons are “an all too common motivation for killing someone.”[3]

S.77 allows an heir, or another person who will benefit financially from a patient’s death, to help the patient sign up for the lethal dose.  S.77 also allows an heir, or someone else who will benefit financially from the death, to pick up the lethal dose at the pharmacy.  Once the lethal dose is in the house, there is no oversight.

S.77 is sold as promoting patient choice and control.  The bill is instead a recipe for elder abuse.  Don’t make Washington’s mistake.


II. FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND

A. Physician-assisted Suicide

The American Medical Association (AMA) defines physician-assisted suicide as occurring “when a physician facilitates a patient’s death by providing the necessary means and/or information to enable the patient to perform the life-ending act.”[4]  An example would be a doctor’s prescription of a lethal dose to facilitate a patient’s suicide.[5]  The AMA rejects this practice, stating:  "Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks."[6]


B. Most States Reject Assisted Suicide

Oregon and Washington are the only states where physician-assisted suicide is legal.  Oregon’s law was enacted by a ballot initiative in 1997.[7]  Washington's law was enacted by another initiative in 2008 and went into effect in 2009.[8]  No such law has made it through the scrutiny of a legislature despite more than 100 attempts.[9]  In a third state, Montana, there is a court decision that gives doctors who assist a suicide a defense to prosecution for homicide.  The meaning of this decision is subject to ongoing litigation.[10]

In the last two years, three states have strengthened their laws against assisted suicide.[11]  These states are: Idaho; Georgia; and Louisiana.[12]


III. THE BILL  

A. Patients are Not Necessarily Dying; They May Have Years to Live

S.77 applies to patients with a “terminal condition,” defined as having a medical prediction of less than six months to live.[13]  Such patients are not necessarily dying and may have years to live.  This is because doctor predictions of life expectancy can be wrong and because the requirement of six months to live is based on the patient’s not being treated.[14]  Consider Oregon resident, Jeanette Hall, who was diagnosed with cancer in 2000 and wanted to do assisted suicide.[15]  Her doctor convinced her to be treated instead.[16]  In a 2012 affidavit, she states:

"This July, it was 12 years since my diagnosis.  If [my doctor] had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead."[17]

B. How S.77 Works

S.77 has an application process to obtain a lethal dose, which includes a written request with two required witnesses.[18]

Once the lethal dose is picked up at the pharmacy, there is no oversight.[19]  The death is not required to be witnessed.  No one, not even a doctor, is required to be present.[20]


IV. ARGUMENT

A. Patient “Control” is an Illusion

1. No witnesses at the death

As noted above, S.77 does not require witnesses at the death.  Without disinterested witnesses, the opportunity is created for the patient’s heir, or for another person who will benefit financially from the death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent.  Even if the patient struggled, who would know?

Without disinterested witnesses, the patient’s choice and control over his death is not guaranteed.

2. Someone else is allowed to talk for the patient

Under S.77, patients obtaining the lethal dose are required to be “capable.”[21]  This is, however, a relaxed standard in which someone else is allowed to talk for the patient.  S.77 states:

"'Capable' means that a patient has the ability to make and communicate health care decisions to a physician, including communication through persons familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating . . .”  (Emphasis added).[22]

The person talking for the patient is not required to be a trusted person designated by the patient, for example, an agent under an advanced directive.[23]  The person talking for the patient is allowed to be an heir.[24]  With this circumstance, the patient is not necessarily in control of his fate.

3. An heir is allowed to procure the patient’s request for the lethal dose

S.77 prohibits an heir from acting as a witness on the written request for the lethal dose.[25]  S.77 does not, however, prohibit an heir from procuring that request.[26]  An example of procuring would be: providing the written request to the patient; recruiting the witnesses; and supervising the signing.  S.77, which allows an heir to procure the request, does not promote patient choice and control.  It invites coercion.

4. An heir is allowed to pick up the lethal dose at the pharmacy

S.77 allows the lethal dose to be picked up at the pharmacy by “an expressly identified agent of the patient.”[27]  S.77 does not prohibit an heir, or another person who will benefit financially from the death, from being this agent.[28]


B. Legalization will Create New Paths of Elder Abuse

 In Vermont, there are an estimated 3,750 cases of violence and abuse against elders each year.[29]  Nationwide, elder financial abuse is a crime growing in intensity, with perpetrators often family members.[30]  There are also victims reported murdered for their funds.[31]

Elder abuse is often difficult to detect.  This is largely due to the unwillingness of victims to report. “Shame, dependence on the abuser, fear of retribution, and isolation from the community are significant obstacles that discourage elders from reporting these crimes.”[32]

In Vermont, preventing abuse of vulnerable adults, which includes the elderly, is official state policy.[33]  If assisted suicide is legalized via S.77, new paths of abuse will be created against the elderly, which is contrary to that policy.  Alex Schadenberg, chair for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, International, states:

"With assisted suicide laws in Washington and Oregon, perpetrators can . . . take a 'legal' route, by getting an elder to sign a lethal dose request.  Once the prescription is filled, there is no supervision over the administration. . . . [E]ven if a patient struggled, “who would know?”[34]


C. Any Study Claiming that Oregon’s Law is Safe, is Invalid

During Montana’s 2011 legislative session, the lack of oversight over administration in Oregon’s law prompted Senator Jeff Essmann to make the following observation: The Oregon studies are invalid.  Senator Essmann, who is now President of the Senate, stated:

"[All] the protections end after the prescription is written. [The proponents] admitted that the provisions in the Oregon law would permit one person to be alone in that room with the patient.  And in that situation, there is no guarantee that that medication is self administered.

So frankly, any of the studies that come out of the state of Oregon’s experience are invalid because no one who administers that drug . . . to that patient is going to be turning themselves in for the commission of a homicide."[35]

D. My Cases

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 struggling over the decision of whether or not to kill himself.  My client, who was fearful that the other side of the family would use the lethal dose to kill the parent, who was no longer competent, was also torn and traumatized.  The parent did not take the lethal dose and died a natural death.

In the other case, the parent reportedly refused to take the lethal dose at his first suicide party (“I’m going to bed.  You’re not killing me”) and was high on alcohol the next night when he took the dose at his second party.  The person who told this to my client subsequently recanted.  My client did not want to pursue the matter further.  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, he would have got the house.  This way, she got everything.

V. CONCLUSION

If S.77 is enacted, patients affected by its passage will not necessarily be dying and may have years to live.  S.77's assurance of patient choice and control is also untrue.  The bill is instead a recipe for elder abuse.  The most obvious problem is a complete lack of oversight over administration of the lethal dose.  No doctor, not even a lay witness is required.  Even if the patient struggled, who would know?

Don’t make Washington’s mistake.  Reject S.77.

Respectfully submitted May 10, 2013

__________________________________

Margaret Dore, Attorney at Law    

Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.

www.margaretdore.com 

www.choiceillusion.org 

1001 4th Avenue, 44th Floor

Seattle, WA 98154

206 389 1754 main reception line

206 389 1562 direct line  

Footnotes:
[1]  I am an elder law/appellate attorney in Washington state who has been licensed to practice law since 1986.  I am a former Law Clerk to the Washington State Supreme Court.  I am a former Chair of the Elder Law Committee of the American Bar Association Family Law Section.  I am also President of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide.  See www.margaretdore.com and www.choiceillusion.org
[2]  S.77, as passed by the Senate on May 8, 2013, can be viewed at this link: http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/s-77-senate-version-as-of-05-08-13.pdf
[3]  People v. Stuart, 67 Cal. Rptr. 3rd 129, 143 (2007).
[4]   AMA Code of Medical Ethics, Opinion 2.211, available at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion2211.page
[5]  Id.
[6]  Id.
[7]  Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide act was passed as Ballot Measure 16 in 1994 and went into effect after a referendum in 1997.
[8]  Washington’s act was passed as Initiative 1000 on November 4, 2008 and went into effect on March 5, 2009.  See http://www.doh.wa.gov/dwda/default.htm
[9]  See tabulation at http://epcdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/attempts_to_legalize_001.pdf
[10]  See Matt Gouras, Associated Press, “Fight over assisted suicide moves back to court,” Billings Gazette, May 8, 2013, available at http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/fight-over-assisted-suicide-moves-back-to-court/article_7985baad-87a0-592a-b6dd-187073a4c47f.html?print=true&cid=print
[11]  See Margaret Dore, “US Overview,” updated July 30, 2012, at http://www.choiceillusion.org/p/us-overview.html
[12]  Id.
[13]  S.77, § 5281(a)(10).
[14]  See 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, January 14, 2009, available at www.seattleweekly.com/2009-01-14/news/terminal-uncertainty.  See also Affidavit of Kenneth Stevens, MD, September 18, 2012, available at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/signed-ken-stevens-affidavit_001.pdf ; and Affidavit of John Norton (when he was eighteen years old, he was told that he would die of ALS and paralysis in three to five years; he is now 75 years old).  Available at http://www.massagainstassistedsuicide.org/2012/09/john-norton-cautionary-tale.html
[15].  Affidavit of Kenneth Stevens, MD, ¶¶ 3-7, at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/signed-ken-stevens-affidavit_001.pdf   Affidavit of Jeanette Hall Opposing Assisted Suicide, August 17, 2012, at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/jeanette-hall-affidavit.pdf
[16]  Id.
[17]  Affidavit of Jeanette Hall, ¶ 4, at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/jeanette-hall-affidavit.pdf
[18]  See § 5283(a)(4)
[19]  See S.77 in its entirety, at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/s-77-senate-version-as-of-05-08-13.pdf
[20]  Id.
[21]   § 5281(a)(2)
[22]   § 5281(a)(2) states: "'Capable' means that a patient has the ability to make and communicate health care decisions to a physician, including communication through  persons familiar with the patient's manner of communicating if those persons are available."
[23]  See S.77 in its entirety, at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/s-77-senate-version-as-of-05-08-13.pdf.
[24]  S.77 does not prohibit heirs, or other persons who benefit financially from the patient’s death, to talk for the patient during the lethal dose request process.  See S.77 in its entirety.
[25]  See § 5281(a)(6)(defining “interested persons,” including an heir) and § 5283(a)(4)(regarding “interested persons”).
[26]  See S.77 in its entirety.
[27]  § 5283(a)(13)(B)(ii)
[28]  See S.77 in its entirety.
[29]  Elder Abuse Public Education Campaign, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, at http://www.ccvs.state.vt.us/pub_ed/index.html  (last visited April 29, 2013).
[30]  See MetLife Mature Market Institute, Broken Trust: Elders, Family and Finances, A Study on Elder Abuse Prevention, March 2009, at http://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/mmi-study-broken-trust-elders-family-finances.pdf (last visited April 29, 2013); Miriam Hernandez, ‘Black Widows’ in court for homeless murders, March 18, 2008, ABC Local, http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&id=6027370 (last visited October 2, 2010) (elderly homeless men killed as part of an insurance scam); and People v. Rutterschmidt, 98 Cal.Rptr.3rd 390 (2009) (regarding this same case).  
[31]  Id.  See also People v. Stuart, 67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 129, 143 (where daughter killed her mother with a pillow, “financial considerations [are] an all too common motivation for killing someone . . .”).
[32]  Elder Abuse Public Education Campaign, supra at note 29.
[33]  See, e.g., Vermont Adult Protective Services Statute, “Reports of Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of Vulnerable Adults,” 33 V.S.A. § 6902(14)(D)(defining a “[v]ulnerable adult" as a person 18 years of age or older who “is impaired due to . . . infirmities of aging . . .”  
[34]  Alex Schadenberg, Letter to the Editor, Elder abuse a growing problem, The Advocate, the official publication of the Idaho State Bar, October 2010, page 14, available at http://www.margaretdore.com/info/October_Letters.pdf
[35]  See link to hearing transcript for SB 167, February 10, 2011,  http://www.margaretdore.com/pdf/senator_essmann_sb_167_001.pdf

Montana: Fight Over Assisted Suicide Moves Back to Court

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/fight-over-assisted-suicide-moves-back-to-court/article_7985baad-87a0-592a-b6dd-187073a4c47f.html?print=true&cid=print

Matt Gouras, AP

HELENA — The fight over physician-assisted suicide in Montana is moving back to the courtroom after the Legislature failed this session to clarify that the practice is specifically legal or illegal.

Montanans Against Assisted Suicide is trying to strike the state Board of Medical Examiners' policy that guides doctors in the matter.

A Helena judge has scheduled oral arguments for next month in the case. The lawsuit was filed in December.    Since then, the Montana Legislature failed in efforts to either clarify that the practice is specifically legal or illegal. It was the second straight session where lawmakers couldn't agree on which direction to take the state.

[To view the lawsuit's petition and attachments, click here , here and here]

Supporters of the procedure argue that Montanans should be allowed to decide themselves how to die when facing terminal illness. Opponents argue physician-assisted suicide is a recipe for elder abuse and the government has a responsibility to protect the vulnerable older population.

The procedure has been surrounded by various interpretations since the Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that nothing in state law prohibits physician-assisted suicide - but it did not rule on whether the practice is a constitutionally protected right. The decision said nothing in state law, or precedent, makes the procedure illegal.

A Board of Medical Examiners rule adopted last year says it would consider, on an individual basis, any complaints filed against a doctor for providing "aid-in-dying." Without formal laws guiding the procedure, there are no other state reporting or other requirements and it is unknown how common the practice is.

Montanans Against Assisted Suicide argues in its court case that it believes the Supreme Court never legalized the procedure with its 2009 decision, which it argues is much narrower than others are interpreting it. The group also argues that the board implemented its new rule without sufficient public notice.

The group argues that the board's position on the matter attempts to convince more doctors they will be protected if they assist a patient with suicide, which can be done with a prescription of drugs.

The lawsuit calls the rule "a significant toe in the door to the attempted backdoor legalization of assisted suicide."

The Montana Board of Medical Examiners has said that it wrote its position paper based on a request from a member. The board said its position does not pass judgment on the procedure one way or another.

The board said at the time it put the rule into place that the position paper was neither an administrative rule or a law, but merely informative guidance to its regulated members.

VT: Vote No on S.77 - Do Not be Fooled

Dear Senators:

This letter addresses assisted suicide and the windfall profit issue.  By this, I mean the situation where people pay for health insurance, but don't use it much.  Then, if assisted suicide is legal and they do get sick, the insurer can legally encourage them to kill themselves.  If this occurs, there is financial gravy for the insurer.

In the US, the head of the main group promoting assisted suicide is a former "managed care executive."  See http://www.margaretdore.com/info/coombs_lee_bio_001.pdf   In 2009, she wrote an op-ed defending the Oregon Health Plan after it denied coverage to a patient.  Her op-ed also encouraged readers to support a public policy discouraging patients from seeking cures, presumably by reducing coverage options.  See here:   http://www.margaretdore.com/pdf/Coombs_Lee_against_Wagner.pdf 

Here in Washington State, her group was the leading force in a ballot measure campaign that legalized assisted suicide.  Our law, like the House Version of S.77, contains coercive provisions, which make it less likely that patients will get their choices.  For example, in both laws, there is no oversight when the lethal dose is administered.  Even if the patient struggled, who would know?

To view a short analysis of the House Version of S.77, go here: http://www.choiceillusion.org/2013/04/vote-no-on-s77-legal-analysis.html 

To view a short article about Washington's law, go here:  https://www.kcba.org/newsevents/barbulletin/BView.aspx?Month=05&Year=2009&AID=article5.htm

Do not be fooled.

Please vote No.

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
206 389 1754
206 389 1562

Vote NO on S.77, A Legal Analysis

Updated May 8, 2013

Dear Vermont Legislator:

This letter provides a legal analysis of the assisted suicide bill, S.77.  To view my memo containing that analysis, click here.  To view the memo's attachments, which include a copy of S.77, click here.

The memo's main points include:

1.  The bill is not limited to people who are dying.  Some of the people at issue will have years to live.  The bill encourages such persons to throw away their lives.

2.  The claim that the bill will assure patient control is untrue.

3.  There is a complete lack of oversight over administration of the lethal dose, which allows it to be administered without patient consent (and without anyone knowing that administration was without patient consent).

4.  The application process has problems:  (1) an heir who will benefit from death is allowed to talk for the patient during the lethal dose request process; and (2) there is nothing to prevent an heir from procuring the patient's signature under circumstances that would constitute undue influence in the context of a will. 

5.  Legalization will create new paths of elder abuse.  I give the example of Thomas Middleton in Oregon.

6.  Guardians and Conservators will not be able to protect their wards from being pushed to suicide and/or other involuntary death.

7.  Legalization will bring stress, trauma and fear (with examples from Oregon and Washington).

8.  In Washington, where we have now had legal assisted suicide for just four years, we have already had proposals to expand our law to direct euthanasia of non-terminal people.  There has also been the the suggestion that we should employ euthanasia as a solution for people who can't afford their own care, which would be involuntary euthanasia.

9.  Any claim that legalization will end murder-suicide and/or violent suicides is baloney.

Margaret Dore
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.
www.margaretdore.com
www.choiceillusion.org
1001 4th Avenue, 44th Floor
Seattle, WA  98154
206 389 1754
206 389 1562 direct line 

Vermont: Vote "NO" on S.77

I am a lawyer and a Democrat from Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.  I hope that you will vote "No" on S.77, which seeks to legalize assisted suicide.

 In 2011, I published an article in the Vermont Bar Journal, titled "Physician-Assisted Suicide:  A Recipe for Elder Abuse and the Illusion of Personal Choice."  A copy can be viewed here:   http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/dore-vermont-bar-journal.pdf   

The flaws that I identified in the above article are present in S.77, with the most obvious being a complete lack of oversight over administration of the lethal dose.  This creates the opportunity for an heir, or someone else who will benefit from the patient's death, to administer the dose to the patient without his consent.  For example, when the patient is asleep (the drugs used are water and alcohol soluble so that they can be injected).

You may also be interested in the following: 

1.  A Legal Analysis

Two years ago, I performed a legal analysis of H.274 and S.103, which are essentially the same bill as the current S.77.  The flaws I identified in my analysis also exist in S.77 although some of the wording and citations are different.  To view that analysis, go here:  http://www.vermontagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/legal-analysis-of-h274-s103.html 

2.  The Thomas Middleton case

This is a case from Oregon in which physician-assisted suicide was part of an elder abuse fraud. See

http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2013/03/physician-assisted-suicide-part-of.html

3.  My cases

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, the parent reportedly refused to take the lethal dose at his first suicide party ("I'm going to bed.  You're not killing me") and was high on alcohol the next night when he took the dose at a second party.  The person who told this to my client then recanted, apparently concerned about his own criminal liability.  My client did not want to pursue the matter further.  As a lawyer, I couldn't help but notice that if the parent's much younger wife had divorced him, he would have got the house.  This way, she got everything. 

 

To learn more about our law, please read this article:  https://www.kcba.org/newsevents/barbulletin/BView.aspx?Month=05&Year=2009&AID=article5.htm

4.  Washington's "Expansion" Issue

In 2009, our assisted suicide law went into effect.  By 2011, there were newspaper proposals to expand that law to direct euthanasia for non-terminal persons.  In 2012, a friend sent me this article suggesting euthanasia for people unable to afford their own care, which would be involuntary euthanasia.  See Jerry Large, "Planning for old age at a premium," The Seattle Times, March 8, 2012, at  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). 

Don't make our mistake.

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 USA

206 389 1754 

Possible expansion of physician-assisted suicide laws in other states should concern Montana

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/mailbag/possible-expansion-of-physician-assisted-suicide-laws-in-other-states/article_e29d5322-8b2c-11e2-aba7-001a4bcf887a.html

I am doctor in Washington state where physician-assisted suicide is legal for “terminal patients” predicted to have less than six months to live. I disagree with the letter by Kristen Wood (letter, Feb. 28) that expansion is not a concern in this context.

In Washington state, our assisted suicide law has only been in effect for four years. We have, however, already had proposals to expand that law to direct euthanasia of non-terminal people. See e.g., Brian Faller, “Perhaps it’s time to expand Washington’s Death with Dignity Act,” Nov. 16, 2011. Last year, there was also this article in the Seattle Times, suggesting euthanasia for people who cannot afford their own care, which would be involuntary euthanasia: Jerry Large, “Planning for old age at a premium,” March 8, 2012 at 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.“)

I am very concerned with where this is all going. I hope that Montana does not follow our lead to legalize assisted suicide.

Richard Wonderly,
Seattle, Washington

"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

Mass: Inclusion Key in anti suicide drive

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/14/inclusion-key-in-anti-suicide-drive/#disqus_thread

By Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times, November 14, 2012

The anti-euthanasia movement found new life last week after voters in Massachusetts defied the conventional wisdom by rejecting a physician-assisted suicide initiative.

In a setback for the “aid in dying” movement, Question 2, known as the Death With Dignity initiative, lost by a margin of 51 percent to 49 percent after leading by 68-to-20 in a poll released in early September by the Boston Globe.

The turnaround came after the “No on 2” camp fractured the liberal coalition that approved similar measures in Oregon and Washington by building a diverse campaign of religious leaders, medical professionals and advocates for the disabled along with a few prominent Democrats and a member of the Kennedy clan.

"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.

Supporting authority not included in the published letter, below:

Massachusetts: Support withered for assisted-suicide ballot question

http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_22157064/support-withered-assisted-suicide-ballot-question#ixzz2Egbgwy23

 

By Chris Camire, ccamire@lowellsun.comlowellsun.com

Updated:   12/09/2012 07:15:07 AM EST

In late September, polls showed a ballot initiative that would make physician-assisted suicide legal for terminally ill patients had support from 68 percent of Massachusetts voters. 

Over the next month, that support steadily eroded, and on Election Day the measure failed by a razor-thin 51-49 percent margin. 

How did a proposal that seemed sure to pass just five weeks before the election come up short? 

Joseph Baerlein, president of Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications, who handled public relations for the Committee Against Physician Assisted Suicide, said the measure's opponents had to convince voters who supported the idea of assisted suicide that the bill before them was flawed. 

"We focused our campaign strategy on looking at those weaknesses," said Baerlein. "For us to have a chance to win, we would have to have some amount of voters who felt it was their right take another look, so they would see that this wasn't the right way to do it."

The Death with Dignity Act, or Question 2, mirrored legislation passed in Oregon and Washington state.

Winning in Massachusetts: Inclusion was Key

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/14/inclusion-key-in-anti-suicide-drive/#disqus_thread

By Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times, November 14, 2012

The anti-euthanasia movement found new life last week after voters in Massachusetts defied the conventional wisdom by rejecting a physician-assisted suicide initiative.

In a setback for the “aid in dying” movement, Question 2, known as the Death With Dignity initiative, lost by a margin of 51 percent to 49 percent after leading by 68-to-20 in a poll released in early September by the Boston Globe.

The turnaround came after the “No on 2” camp fractured the liberal coalition that approved similar measures in Oregon and Washington by building a diverse campaign of religious leaders, medical professionals and advocates for the disabled along with a few prominent Democrats and a member of the Kennedy clan.

Those who are not dying can be lured to assisted suicide

http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/letters/2012/11/02/those-who-are-not-dying-can-lured-assisted-suicide/mYhNV8k6hWseAFwSxdCnIL/story.html

I am a cancer doctor in Oregon, where physician-assisted suicide is legal. Oregon's assisted-suicide law applies to patients predicted to have less than six months to live. This does not necessarily mean that such patients are dying.

In 2000, I had a cancer patient named Jeanette Hall. Another doctor had given her a terminal diagnosis of six months to a year to live.  This was based on her not being treated for cancer. At our first meeting, she told me that she did not want to be treated, and that she wanted to opt for what our law allowed - to kill herself with a lethal dose of barbiturates.

I did not and do not believe in assisted suicide. I informed her that her cancer was treatable and that her prospects were good. But she wanted "the pills."  She had made up her mind, but she continued to see me. On the third or fourth visit, I asked her about her family and learned that she had a son. I asked her how he would feel if she went through with her plan. Shortly after that, she agreed to be treated, and her cancer was cured. 

Several years later she saw me in a restaurant and said, "Dr. Stevens, you saved my life."

For her, the mere presence of legal assisted suicide had steered her to suicide.

I urge the citizens of Massachusetts to vote no on Question 2.

Dr. Kenneth Stevens

Sherwood, Ore