My Personal Experience With Assisted Suicide

By Margaret Dore

In another life, most likely in 1980 when I was 23 years old, I talked three young men down from suicide.

What I think happened is that a final exit network type person had given them my phone number by mistake. This was before the age of caller ID.

I was contacted by each of the three young men over a period of time, each one wanting assistance to kill himself. 

I called a suicide prevention person to ask what I should do, i.e., with regard to the first one. The person told me to ask the suicidal person why? To engage him.  

So that’s what I did. I met each one at a local park, which I thought would be safe for me and asked him why, and then I tried to expand to other topics.  

The last one I got him laughing. He told me that he no longer felt like killing himself.

To the best of my knowledge they all lived, but I don't know for sure.

People in Distress Need Support, Not a Fast-Track to Death

The Connecticut General Assembly will again skip considering a bill that would provide a legal avenue for medical aid in dying, or physician-assisted suicide [or euthanasia], in the state. 

“I’m disappointed,” said state Rep. Josh Elliott, a Hamden Democrat who’s been a longtime legislative champion of the proposal. “But in this work you get used to it. No matter how refined your legislative agenda is, it always ends up functionally being throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. It didn’t stick this year — but now in my fifth term, I know that there is always next year.”

Elliott had introduced the bill this year alongside two colleagues, but it was not raised by the General Assembly’s Public Health Committee before a deadline to advance it further.

CT Insider reported in 2024 that Elliott and advocates planned to skip that year’s session in the hopes of taking it up again this year....

“Second Thoughts Connecticut was glad to hear that our state legislature continues to move cautiously when it comes to medical assisted suicide,” said Cathy Ludlum [pictured above] of Second Thoughts Connecticut, a group of disability rights advocates opposed to the legalization of assisted suicide.

“Legislators have wisely stopped it from coming here this year, and we are thankful,” Ludlum said. “People in distress need support, not a fast-track to death.”

Doctors, Disability Activists Split on Support for Controversial Procedure

byAndrew Adams

 

 

CHICAGO — Lawmakers are considering legalizing a controversial medical practice that proponents say could ease suffering for the terminally ill.

It’s sometimes called “assisted suicide,” although physicians and advocates for the practice prefer the term “medical aid in dying,” or MAID.

While Compassion & Choices — a group that advocates for medical aid in dying policies — found a majority of Illinois voters supported legalizing MAID in a 2023 poll, some critics call the process “barbaric.”

Proposed Oregon Bill Would Allow Non-Physicians to Legally Participate in Assisted Suicide & Euthanasia

By Leslie Wolfgang | February 18, 2025, 12:53pm 

An Oregon bill would expand the state’s current law to permit physician assistants and nurse practitioners to prescribe “medication” to help a person to commit suicide. 

Senate Bill 1003 changes the term “attending physician” to “prescribing provider,” and “consulting physician” to “consulting provider.” The term “provider” would be defined as a physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner under Oregon law. This bill represents the first time that non-physicians would be authorized to assist the killing of a person in the United States.  

Nurses participate in the euthanasia and assisted suicide of persons in Canada, where the country’s “Medical Assistance In Dying” (MAiD) rates are already high and continuing to increase. According to 2023 statistics, these practitioner-assisted killings account for 4.7%, or 1 in 20 deaths, in Canada.

The Extreme Legal Theory Behind Trump’s First Month in Office

By Michael Waldman, 02/20/25* 

Over President’s Day weekend, Donald Trump posted, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” This is a quote attributed to Napoleon — you know, the guy who crowned himself emperor. For a long time, the trope went that people who were delusional thought they were Napoleon. No one’s laughing now.  

Less incendiary but perhaps more consequential, yesterday Trump signed an executive order that purports to seize control of independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. These expert bodies fight monopolies, police bank safety, organize the broadcast industry, and more. They are central to the entire edifice of modern government, built up over the past 140 years, which ensures that the free market does not devolve into an abusive free-for-all. 

The new president’s power grab may get clothed in legalistic garb by the highest court in the land, and some academics and advocates will applaud the decision. Very soon, we will be hearing a lot about the “unitary executive theory.” 

The framers of the Constitution were vague about what the president could and could not do. They knew that George Washington would be the first, but beyond that, things were a bit fuzzy. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote in 1952 that what they intended “must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh.”