Click here to see the website: Utah Against Assisted Suicide: "Choice" is an Illusion!
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
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Massachusetts voters, reject Petition 11-12
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/11/massachusetts-voters-reject-petition-1112/
If adopted this November, a ballot initiative in Massachusetts will legalize physician-assisted suicide for patients whose conditions are predicted to produce death within six months. Initiative Petition 11-12 claims to ensure that the patient's decision to commit suicide is voluntary. That claim, however, is misleading.
The initiative petition requires that two persons witness the patient's written request for a lethal prescription. One witness, however, can have a financial interest in the patient's death. That person can be the only witness present when the lethal drug is taken. Thus, an interested heir could pressure the patient, and no one would know because no objective witness is required when the drug is taken. Also, the petition would require the death certificate fraudulently to list the patient's underlying condition, rather than the lethal drug, as the cause of death.
Initiative Petition 11-12 uses terms like life-ending "medication" and death in a "humane and dignified manner." But there is nothing medicinal about poison and nothing dignified about the prospects for the abuse the initiative petition would allow. It is a bad law that the voters of Massachusetts should reject decisively.
STEPHEN L. MIKOCHIK
Professor emeritus
Temple Law School
If adopted this November, a ballot initiative in Massachusetts will legalize physician-assisted suicide for patients whose conditions are predicted to produce death within six months. Initiative Petition 11-12 claims to ensure that the patient's decision to commit suicide is voluntary. That claim, however, is misleading.
The initiative petition requires that two persons witness the patient's written request for a lethal prescription. One witness, however, can have a financial interest in the patient's death. That person can be the only witness present when the lethal drug is taken. Thus, an interested heir could pressure the patient, and no one would know because no objective witness is required when the drug is taken. Also, the petition would require the death certificate fraudulently to list the patient's underlying condition, rather than the lethal drug, as the cause of death.
Initiative Petition 11-12 uses terms like life-ending "medication" and death in a "humane and dignified manner." But there is nothing medicinal about poison and nothing dignified about the prospects for the abuse the initiative petition would allow. It is a bad law that the voters of Massachusetts should reject decisively.
STEPHEN L. MIKOCHIK
Professor emeritus
Temple Law School
Monday, January 9, 2012
The Emperor has no Clothes: "VSED"
Euthanasia proponents have a new campaign promoting starvation and dehydration. VSED: "Voluntarily" stopping eating and drinking. Below, Kate Kelly provides a real life example: "I watched her suffer."
______________________________________________
I watched an old woman die of hunger and thirst. She had Alzheimer's, this old woman, and was child-like, trusting, vulnerable, with a child's delight at treats of chocolate and ice cream, and a child's fear and frustration when tired or ill.
I watched her suffer, and I listened to the medical practitioners, to a son who legally decided her fate, and to an eldest daughter who advised him and told me that the old woman, my mother, was "comfortable," except when she was "in distress," at which times the nurses medicated her to make her "comfortable" again.
I watched the old woman develop ulcerations inside her mouth as she became more and more dehydrated; the caregivers assured me these were not painful.
______________________________________________
Mild stroke led to mother's forced starvation
By Kate Kelly
I watched an old woman die of hunger and thirst. She had Alzheimer's, this old woman, and was child-like, trusting, vulnerable, with a child's delight at treats of chocolate and ice cream, and a child's fear and frustration when tired or ill.
I watched her die for six days and nights.
I watched her suffer, and I listened to the medical practitioners, to a son who legally decided her fate, and to an eldest daughter who advised him and told me that the old woman, my mother, was "comfortable," except when she was "in distress," at which times the nurses medicated her to make her "comfortable" again.
I watched the old woman develop ulcerations inside her mouth as she became more and more dehydrated; the caregivers assured me these were not painful.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Canada: The Danger of Euthanasia: "If euthanasia were legal, the wife, not wanting to die, would still be a victim"
By Alex Schadenberg, Ottawa Citizen January 2, 2012
Re: Time to rethink euthanasia, Dec. 29.
Marcel Lavoie implies that legalizing euthanasia would stop violent deaths in the elderly, such as the death of Doreen Flann by stabbing.
In many of these deaths, the perpetrator-husband also kills himself for a murder-suicide.
In many of these deaths, the perpetrator-husband also kills himself for a murder-suicide.
In Oregon, where assisted-suicide has been legal since 1997, murdersuicide has not been eliminated. Indeed, murder-suicide follows the national pattern.
Moreover, according to Donna Cohen, an expert on murder-suicide, the typical case involves a depressed, controlling husband who shoots his ill wife: "The wife does not want to die and is often shot in her sleep. If she was awake at the time, there are usually signs that she tried to defend herself."
If euthanasia were legal, the wife, not wanting to die, would still be a victim.
Our laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia are in place to protect vulnerable people. Assisted suicide and/or euthanasia should not be legalized in Canada.
[For more indepth information, see Dominique Bourget, MD, Pierre Gagne, MD, Laurie Whitehouse, PhD, "Domestic Homicide and Homicide-Suicide: The Older Offender," Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, September 2010 (Canadian study); Don Colburn, "Recent murder-suicides follow the national pattern," The Oregonian, November 17, 2009; and “Murder-suicides in Elderly Rise: Husbands commit most murder-suicides – without wives’ consent” ]
Alex Schadenberg,
Moreover, according to Donna Cohen, an expert on murder-suicide, the typical case involves a depressed, controlling husband who shoots his ill wife: "The wife does not want to die and is often shot in her sleep. If she was awake at the time, there are usually signs that she tried to defend herself."
If euthanasia were legal, the wife, not wanting to die, would still be a victim.
Our laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia are in place to protect vulnerable people. Assisted suicide and/or euthanasia should not be legalized in Canada.
[For more indepth information, see Dominique Bourget, MD, Pierre Gagne, MD, Laurie Whitehouse, PhD, "Domestic Homicide and Homicide-Suicide: The Older Offender," Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, September 2010 (Canadian study); Don Colburn, "Recent murder-suicides follow the national pattern," The Oregonian, November 17, 2009; and “Murder-suicides in Elderly Rise: Husbands commit most murder-suicides – without wives’ consent” ]
Alex Schadenberg,
London Ont., Canada
Executive Director,
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Canada: No Right to be Killed by Others
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/right+killed+others/5931282/story.html
Re: Poll: 67% Support Assisted Suicide, Dec. 30.
I am greatly perplexed when I hear euthanasia proponents talk about a "basic human right to die," when there is no such thing. We are all going to die anyway, so let's please be honest and call it what it is: The right to be killed by somebody else. I am deeply disturbed by people who overlook the failure of the euthanasia experiments in other countries. Why do they coldly dismiss all those hundreds of people who have been euthanized without their consent? Do they consider them collateral damage? Would they call for an absolute right to drive for everybody, even if they knew lots of innocent people would be killed by incompetent drivers? I don't think so.
Canada rightly forbade capital punishment, due to the fact that no system can guarantee that no one will be killed by mistake. We have the freedom to make choices, but those choices should not hinder the safety of others, especially our most vulnerable.
Rene Leiva, physician, Ottawa.
Re: Poll: 67% Support Assisted Suicide, Dec. 30.
I am greatly perplexed when I hear euthanasia proponents talk about a "basic human right to die," when there is no such thing. We are all going to die anyway, so let's please be honest and call it what it is: The right to be killed by somebody else. I am deeply disturbed by people who overlook the failure of the euthanasia experiments in other countries. Why do they coldly dismiss all those hundreds of people who have been euthanized without their consent? Do they consider them collateral damage? Would they call for an absolute right to drive for everybody, even if they knew lots of innocent people would be killed by incompetent drivers? I don't think so.
Canada rightly forbade capital punishment, due to the fact that no system can guarantee that no one will be killed by mistake. We have the freedom to make choices, but those choices should not hinder the safety of others, especially our most vulnerable.
Rene Leiva, physician, Ottawa.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Canada: "Justice Smith seemed skepical of Mr. Arvay's argument"
This Report is from the Farewell Foundation for the Carter Case, December 16, 2011:
Zero-Tolerance for Wrongful Death
Joe Arvay submitted that Canada's closing argument amounts to a "zero-tolerance" policy because it says Parliament can't enact a law that "might create even the 'risk' that one person might die who should not have died." Arvay said Canada's counsel is "simply wrong" and clarified that Parliament could "leave the matter unregulated as a private matter between the physician and patient," but he hoped government would create some sort of law to regulate assisted death.
Justice Smith pointed out that Canada did not have capital punishment because of the risk that one wrongful death of an innocent person is too many. "What do you say to that?"
Mr. Arvay answered "Let us put to rest once and for all the complete red herring of capital punishment.. Canada says capital punishment was abolished 'precisely because even the best justice system in the world makes mistakes that, if capital punishment were an option, would result in the death of innocent individuals.' . It need hardly be mentioned that we can assume that everyone on death row wants to live and is being killed involuntarily. Involuntary death is not only not sought in this case, it is the polar opposite of what is sought in this case - the right to control one's own life and death."
Justice Smith seemed skeptical at Mr. Arvay's argument. She pointed out that some voluntary deaths may involve people who do not really mean to die. In answer, Arvay said that the risks had to be reconciled somehow, that we don't live in a totally risk free world and that the Court should look at the risks that are already inherent in the medical system every day. Arvay said that if Justice Smith chose to strike the law, the federal parliament had the option of crafting the best law humanely possible.
To view the entire report, go here:
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Hawaii: Attorney General Opinion Attached
Per Jim Hochberg, Hawaii State Senator Joshua Green, MD, has authorized release of the Attorney General's opinion rejecting C & C's claim that assisted suicide is "already legal" in Hawaii. The opinion states in part:
"Dear Senator Green:
Re: Hawaii law on assistance with dying
You have asked (1) whether §453-1, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), authorizes a physician to assist a terminally ill patient with dying when requested by or on behalf of the patient, and (2) whether any criminal laws prohibit aid in dying.
We are assuming that a physician’s assistance with dying would consist of prescribing a lethal dose of medication that a terminally ill patient could take to bring on a swifter and possibly more peaceful death than would otherwise ensue. Our analysis addresses only this method of assistance. Briefly, (1) we do not believe that §453-1 provides authority for a physician to assist with dying, and (2) a physician who provided such assistance could be charged under Hawaii’s manslaughter statute. . . ."
To view the entire opinion, click here.
"Dear Senator Green:
Re: Hawaii law on assistance with dying
You have asked (1) whether §453-1, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), authorizes a physician to assist a terminally ill patient with dying when requested by or on behalf of the patient, and (2) whether any criminal laws prohibit aid in dying.
We are assuming that a physician’s assistance with dying would consist of prescribing a lethal dose of medication that a terminally ill patient could take to bring on a swifter and possibly more peaceful death than would otherwise ensue. Our analysis addresses only this method of assistance. Briefly, (1) we do not believe that §453-1 provides authority for a physician to assist with dying, and (2) a physician who provided such assistance could be charged under Hawaii’s manslaughter statute. . . ."
To view the entire opinion, click here.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Hawaii: Attorney General Rejects C & C Claim that Assisted Suicide is "Already Legal"
The Attorney General of Hawaii has issued a formal opinion rejecting Compassion & Choices' claim that physician-assisted suicide, termed "aid in dying," is legal in Hawaii.
A press release issued by the Alliance Defense Fund describes that Senator Josh Green, MD had requested the opinion from Attorney General David Louie.[1] The press release states:
"[T]he attorney general's legal opinion states that state law "does not authorize physicians to assist terminally ill patients with dying" and "a physician who provided assistance with death could be charged under Hawaii's manslaughter statute."
The press release also quotes Honolulu attorney Jim Hochberg: "[N]o one should believe the recent falsehoods that pro-death proponents have spread about [Hawaii] law."
A press release issued by the Alliance Defense Fund describes that Senator Josh Green, MD had requested the opinion from Attorney General David Louie.[1] The press release states:
"[T]he attorney general's legal opinion states that state law "does not authorize physicians to assist terminally ill patients with dying" and "a physician who provided assistance with death could be charged under Hawaii's manslaughter statute."
The press release also quotes Honolulu attorney Jim Hochberg: "[N]o one should believe the recent falsehoods that pro-death proponents have spread about [Hawaii] law."
* * *
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Press Release: Mass Against Assisted Suicide
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Massachusetts Assisted Suicide Initiative a Recipe for Elder Abuse
Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide, has launched a new website agianst the Massachusetts "death with dignity" initiative. The website's name is "Mass Against Assisted Suicide."
Margaret Dore, President of Choice is an Illusion and an elder law attorney, states: "The initiative's introduction declares that the process will be 'entirely voluntary' for the patient. The act, as written, does not deliver on this promise. The act is instead a recipe for elder abuse."
The proposed act has an application process to obtain a lethal dose for the purpose of causing the patient's death. The act allows the patient's heir, who will benefit financially from the death, to actively help the patient sign up for the lethal dose. Dore states: "The act allows an heir to participate as one of two witnesses on the lethal dose request form. The act also allows someone else to speak for the patient."
"This does not meet the stink test," said Dore. "Signing away your life under the proposed act has less protection than signing a will."
Dore explained that when signing a will, similar conduct can create a presumption of fraud and undue influence.
Dore also pointed out that there is no oversight once the lethal dose of has been filled under the proposed act.
"The death is not required to be witnessed by disinterested persons," Dore said. "Indeed, no one is required to be present."
"Without disinterested witnesses, the opportunity is created for an heir, or someone else who will benefit from the death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent. Who would know?"
This year in New Hampshire, a similar "death with dignity" act was defeated in the House of Representatives by a vote of 234 to 99.
Former New Hampshire State Representative Nancy Elliott said: "Assisted suicide laws empower heirs and others to pressure and abuse older people to cut short their lives. This is especially an issue when the older person has money. There is no assisted suicide bill that you can write to correct this huge problem."
Massachusetts Assisted Suicide Initiative a Recipe for Elder Abuse
Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide, has launched a new website agianst the Massachusetts "death with dignity" initiative. The website's name is "Mass Against Assisted Suicide."
Margaret Dore, President of Choice is an Illusion and an elder law attorney, states: "The initiative's introduction declares that the process will be 'entirely voluntary' for the patient. The act, as written, does not deliver on this promise. The act is instead a recipe for elder abuse."
The proposed act has an application process to obtain a lethal dose for the purpose of causing the patient's death. The act allows the patient's heir, who will benefit financially from the death, to actively help the patient sign up for the lethal dose. Dore states: "The act allows an heir to participate as one of two witnesses on the lethal dose request form. The act also allows someone else to speak for the patient."
"This does not meet the stink test," said Dore. "Signing away your life under the proposed act has less protection than signing a will."
Dore explained that when signing a will, similar conduct can create a presumption of fraud and undue influence.
Dore also pointed out that there is no oversight once the lethal dose of has been filled under the proposed act.
"The death is not required to be witnessed by disinterested persons," Dore said. "Indeed, no one is required to be present."
"Without disinterested witnesses, the opportunity is created for an heir, or someone else who will benefit from the death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent. Who would know?"
This year in New Hampshire, a similar "death with dignity" act was defeated in the House of Representatives by a vote of 234 to 99.
Former New Hampshire State Representative Nancy Elliott said: "Assisted suicide laws empower heirs and others to pressure and abuse older people to cut short their lives. This is especially an issue when the older person has money. There is no assisted suicide bill that you can write to correct this huge problem."
- * * *
* * *
Margaret Dore is President of Choice is an Illusion and an elder law attorney. Contact her at 206-389-1754 or margaretdore@margaretdore.com. See also http://www.margaretdore.org/ Contact Former New Hampshire State RepresentativeNancy Elliott at mmknhrep@gmail.com
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Canada: "The idea that legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia will somehow increase patient choice . . . is a society gone mad"
Dear Editor,
Mark Hume's article cheering on the anonymous family "forced" to kill their parents is a not-so-subtle endorsement of the current challenge to our laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia. The article is titled "A.B.C.'s family's secret: how they helped their parents die." My question is, what were the family's other "secrets"? How much did they inherit, who got the house, or were the killings done as payback for long past wrongs? Elder abuse is a terrible problem in this country and the scenario I describe is not uncommon.
Hume's article also ignores that older people are already being killed in our health care facilities via dehydration, starvation, and/or morphine overdose. For one instance, see this article in the Winnipeg Free Press, "Alleged deprivation of senior probed: Denied food, water in hospital." ( http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/alleged-deprivation-of-senior-probed-132297303.html ) My own mother had a similar experience in an extended care facility in Nova Scotia. A mild stroke led to her forced starvation and dehydration. It didn't matter that she was conscious and trying to speak, or that she had indicated she wanted water.
As evidenced by the overreaching doctors described in the above article and my mother's experience, some doctors cannot be trusted with the power they already have. Legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia will give them even more power to effect patient death. The idea that legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia will somehow increase patient choice and autonomy is a society gone mad.
To read my mother's story, please click here: http://www.choiceillusion.org/p/mild-stroke-led-to-mothers-forced.html
Thank you,
Kate Kelly, B.A., B.Ed
Mark Hume's article cheering on the anonymous family "forced" to kill their parents is a not-so-subtle endorsement of the current challenge to our laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia. The article is titled "A.B.C.'s family's secret: how they helped their parents die." My question is, what were the family's other "secrets"? How much did they inherit, who got the house, or were the killings done as payback for long past wrongs? Elder abuse is a terrible problem in this country and the scenario I describe is not uncommon.
Hume's article also ignores that older people are already being killed in our health care facilities via dehydration, starvation, and/or morphine overdose. For one instance, see this article in the Winnipeg Free Press, "Alleged deprivation of senior probed: Denied food, water in hospital." ( http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/alleged-deprivation-of-senior-probed-132297303.html ) My own mother had a similar experience in an extended care facility in Nova Scotia. A mild stroke led to her forced starvation and dehydration. It didn't matter that she was conscious and trying to speak, or that she had indicated she wanted water.
As evidenced by the overreaching doctors described in the above article and my mother's experience, some doctors cannot be trusted with the power they already have. Legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia will give them even more power to effect patient death. The idea that legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia will somehow increase patient choice and autonomy is a society gone mad.
To read my mother's story, please click here: http://www.choiceillusion.org/p/mild-stroke-led-to-mothers-forced.html
Thank you,
Kate Kelly, B.A., B.Ed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)