Members of the House:
I am a lawyer in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. I urge you to oppose SB 426, which establishes a commission to study "end-of-life choices," a euphemism for assisted suicide and euthanasia for people who are not necessarily dying anytime soon. Bills legalizing these practices, in the fine print, do not assure choice; they are uniformly stacked against the patient. "Eligible" patients may have years, even decades, to live. (not end of life).
Specific Objections to SB 426:
1. The New Hampshire House has already extensively studied assisted suicide/euthanasia, and rejected it.
2. Given the bill's deceptive language, the proposed commission will promote assisted suicide and euthanasia without being clear as to what's being discussed, and for whom it's being discussed (non-dying people). The deceptiveness alone is bad public policy.
Monday, March 28, 2016
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Rhode Island, Providence Journal Article
http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20160323/both-sides-bring-painful-stories-to-end-of-life-debate
By Jennifer Bogdan, Journal State House Bureau
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Susanna Brown couldn't make it to the State House Wednesday night to testify against a bill that could allow her to end her own life.
The 75-year-old North Scituate resident has breast cancer that has spread to her bones, and she's struggling with her latest chemotherapy treatment. So she sent her daughter, Julie Lamin, to tell lawmakers this:
"She insisted that I come and speak on her behalf because this bill insults the dignity of her life," Lamin said. "She wanted to tell you that her life is valuable until that last breath and that this bill really scares her ... because someone could say, 'Well you're going to be suffering, and we don't want you to suffer. You can end it early.'"
 | |||
| "This bill encourages people to throw away their lives" |
By Jennifer Bogdan, Journal State House Bureau
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Susanna Brown couldn't make it to the State House Wednesday night to testify against a bill that could allow her to end her own life.
The 75-year-old North Scituate resident has breast cancer that has spread to her bones, and she's struggling with her latest chemotherapy treatment. So she sent her daughter, Julie Lamin, to tell lawmakers this:
"She insisted that I come and speak on her behalf because this bill insults the dignity of her life," Lamin said. "She wanted to tell you that her life is valuable until that last breath and that this bill really scares her ... because someone could say, 'Well you're going to be suffering, and we don't want you to suffer. You can end it early.'"
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Rhode Island: Press Release
https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/press-release-03-22-161.pdf
Dore: “The bill is sold as assuring patient
choice and control. The bill is instead
stacked against the patient and a recipe for elder abuse.”
Contact: Margaret Dore
(206) 697-1217
Providence, RI – Attorney Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, which has fought assisted suicide/euthanasia legalization efforts in many states and now Rhode Island, made the following statement in connection with tomorrow's legislative hearing on a bill seeking to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in that state. (H 7659, hearing Wednesday, 3/23/16, Rise of the House).
"There is a bill pending before the Rhode Island House of Representatives, which seeks to legalize physician-assisted suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia as those terms are traditionally defined," said Dore. "The bill describes these practices as 'hastening death,' but there is no requirement that a person be near death. Indeed, ‘eligible’ persons may have years, even decades, to live.”
Dore said, "The bill is sold as assuring patient choice and control. The bill is instead stacked against the patient and a recipe for elder abuse.” Dore elaborated, “The patient's heir, who will financially benefit from the patient's death, is allowed to actively participate in signing the patient up for the lethal dose. After that, no doctor, not even a witness, is required to be present at the death. Even if the patient struggled, who would know?” Dore concluded, “The bill creates the perfect crime.”
Contact: Margaret Dore
(206) 697-1217
Providence, RI – Attorney Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, which has fought assisted suicide/euthanasia legalization efforts in many states and now Rhode Island, made the following statement in connection with tomorrow's legislative hearing on a bill seeking to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in that state. (H 7659, hearing Wednesday, 3/23/16, Rise of the House).
"There is a bill pending before the Rhode Island House of Representatives, which seeks to legalize physician-assisted suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia as those terms are traditionally defined," said Dore. "The bill describes these practices as 'hastening death,' but there is no requirement that a person be near death. Indeed, ‘eligible’ persons may have years, even decades, to live.”
Dore said, "The bill is sold as assuring patient choice and control. The bill is instead stacked against the patient and a recipe for elder abuse.” Dore elaborated, “The patient's heir, who will financially benefit from the patient's death, is allowed to actively participate in signing the patient up for the lethal dose. After that, no doctor, not even a witness, is required to be present at the death. Even if the patient struggled, who would know?” Dore concluded, “The bill creates the perfect crime.”
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Minnesota Senator Withdraws Bill
This afternoon, Senator Chris Eaton withdrew SF 1880, which had sought to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in Minnesota.
Senator Eaton did not have the votes to pass the bill out of committee.
To view a legal/policy memo analyzing the bill, click here. To view the memo's attachments, click here.
Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA
Senator Eaton did not have the votes to pass the bill out of committee.
To view a legal/policy memo analyzing the bill, click here. To view the memo's attachments, click here.
Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA
Monday, March 14, 2016
Minnesota: Dore Memo Opposing Assisted-Suicide/Euthanasia Bill
Intro Re Minnesota Bill SF 1880:
The proposed bill seeks to legalize physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia as those terms are traditionally defined. The bill calls these practices, “aid in dying.” The bill does not, however, require that a patient be dying. Indeed, “eligible” patients may have years or even decades to live.
The bill also legalizes undue influence as that term is traditionally defined. The bill is otherwise stacked against the patient and a recipe for elder abuse. I urge you to vote “No” on SF 1880. Don’t be fooled.
To view the full memo, click here. To view the attachments, click here.
The proposed bill seeks to legalize physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia as those terms are traditionally defined. The bill calls these practices, “aid in dying.” The bill does not, however, require that a patient be dying. Indeed, “eligible” patients may have years or even decades to live.
The bill also legalizes undue influence as that term is traditionally defined. The bill is otherwise stacked against the patient and a recipe for elder abuse. I urge you to vote “No” on SF 1880. Don’t be fooled.
To view the full memo, click here. To view the attachments, click here.
Sunday, March 6, 2016
Assisted Suicide Proponents Wilt After Tough Questioning by Committee
From Stop Assisted Suicide Maryland
 |
| Margaret Dore, Esq. |
Posted
on February 26, 2016
(Annopolis MD) Proponents
of physician-assisted suicide struggled to answer the tough questions thrown at
them at yesterday’s Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee hearing on SB 418. The
Committee met late into the night with Senators raising significant concerns
with the bill and its lack of protections.
The
message from proponents, led by national group Compassion & Choices, was
that any protections in the law would stall a patient’s ability to get a lethal
prescription from their physician. And questions surrounding these increased
protections continuously baffled witnesses. There is nothing in this bill that
would require a mental health screening, or ensure a physician is present at the
time the lethal dose is taken. Proponents’ response to these concerns is that
the Maryland healthcare system can’t support these types of mandates. This is a
weak excuse when it comes to protecting our most vulnerable populations who will
be at risk if this bill is passed.
In
fact, across the board proponents neglect to mention the issues in this
legislation that would put our most vulnerable populations at risk. One witness
in support of the bill, even referred to the disabled community’s concerns
surrounding abuse and coercion of the vulnerable as irresponsible. ... This is a community that has consistently faced discrimination in
healthcare laws. To not consider the threat to this community is
irresponsible.
Powerful
testimony was presented by an elder law attorney [Margaret Dore] who raised the significant
potential for elder abuse surrounding this legislation.* She stated that in her
experience, it is very common that family members are coercing elderly relatives
for financial reasons. In confusing answers, proponents pushed back against
protections that would disqualify witnesses who would benefit financially from a
death, using the unacceptable excuse that it would leave family out of this
process.
The
Senate Committee brought some important questions to the table and it was clear
that proponents were not prepared to answer. Maybe it’s because they know the
physician assisted suicide bill in Maryland is indefensible.
* To view Ms. Dore's written testimony, please see memo here; click here for the appendix.
* To view Ms. Dore's written testimony, please see memo here; click here for the appendix.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)