Las Vegas Man Sentenced After Assisted Suicide

http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/article_05c7fdd6-1fc4-11e2-9b32-001a4bcf6878.html

Posted: Friday, October 26, 2012 6:22 pm | Updated: 6:30 pm, Fri Oct 26, 2012.
Jared Taylor, Twitter: @jaredataylor The Monitor

McALLEN -  A federal judge sent to prison a Las Vegas man convicted of smuggling powerful animal tranquilizers from Mexico used in an assisted suicide in Nuevo Progreso.

Chief U.S. District Judge Ricardo Hinojosa sentenced Jeff George Ostfeld to six years in federal prison Wednesday, after he pleaded guilty to importation of a controlled substance.

But after the assisted suicide in Mexico, Hinojosa opted to follow sentencing guidelines for Ostfeld under a charge of voluntary manslaughter - not the drug charge.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Ostfeld in May 2009 as he attempted to smuggle animal tranquilizers across the Progreso International Bridge.

The arrest came moments after Mexican police discovered the body of 32-year-old Jennifer Malone at a Nuevo Progreso motel.

Ostfeld shot video of Malone as she died, investigators said. He retrieved some of her personal effects and abandoned her body in the motel room.

Mexican investigators found an empty bottle of Barbithal and a book about depression beside the body of Malone, of Roseburg, Ore.,  according to Monitor archives. The same drug was found by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers as Ostfeld tried to return to the United States.

Ostfeld told ICE agents he had flown from Las Vegas to McAllen to buy animal tranquilizers in Nuevo Progreso for resale in the United States. The drug can sell for as little as $20 per bottle in Mexico, but can net as much as $5,000 north of the Rio Grande.

Canada: Crown files opening brief in Carter

Assisted suicide too risky, allowing it demeans value of life, federal gov't says

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Assisted+suicide+risky+allowing+demeans+value+life+federal+says/7447066/story.html

The Canadian Press October 25, 2012 12:30 PM

 

VANCOUVER - The federal government says allowing doctor-assisted suicide demeans the value of life and puts vulnerable people at risk in moments of weakness.

Ottawa has filed its arguments in an appeal of a B.C. decision that struck down the prohibition on doctor-assisted suicide, arguing the trial judge was wrong to conclude the law is unconstitutional.

In documents filed with the B.C. Court of Appeal, the government says the law reflects a reasonable belief that allowing assisted suicide would put vulnerable people at risk of being coerced or even forced to end their lives.

The government says the law reflects Parliament's desire to discourage and prevent suicide in all cases, and it should be up to lawmakers, not the courts, to decide if that needs to change.

Ottawa argues the Supreme Court of Canada's 1993 decision upholding the law in a case involving Sue Rodriguez was final.

The B.C. case was launched by several plaintiffs, including Gloria Taylor, who won a constitutional exemption from the law but died earlier this month without resorting to assisted suicide.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Assisted+suicide+risky+allowing+demeans+value+life+federal+says/7447066/story.html#ixzz2AM32CGOR

Legalization And Violent Deaths

By Margaret Dore

Assisted suicide proponents claim that legal assisted suicide will prevent violent deaths such as those by murder-suicide and suicide involving a handgun.[1] In Oregon where assisted-suicide has been legal since 1997, murder-suicide has not been eliminated.[2]  Indeed, murder-suicides follow "the national pattern."[3]  As discussed below, suicides involving a handgun have also not been eliminated.  Oregon's suicide rate has instead increased with legalization of assisted suicide.

Oregon’s overall suicide rate, which excludes suicides under Oregon’s assisted suicide act, is 35% above the national average.[4] This rate has been "increasing significantly since 2000."[5]  Just three years prior, in 1997, Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide.[6] Other suicides thus increased, not decreased, with legalization of assisted suicide.  Moreover, many of these deaths are violent.  For 2007, which is the most recent year reported, "[f]irearms were the dominant mechanism of suicide among men."[7] The claim that legalization will prevent violent deaths is without factual support.

* * *

[1]  See e.g. Lindsey Anderson, Associated Press, "Mass. Voters Consider Physician-Assisted Suicide," October 20, 2012, at http://www.wbur.org/2012/10/20/physician-assisted-suicide ("Dr. Marcia Angell ... believes [her father] would've lived longer and not turned to a pistol had assisted suicide been available").
[2]  See Don Colburn, "Recent murder-suicides follow the national pattern," The Oregonian, November 17, 2009 ("In the span of one week this month in the Portland area, three murder-suicides resulted in the deaths of six adults and two children") (Available at http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2009/11/recent_murder-suicides_follow.html); Baldr Odinson, "Fourth Murder-Suicide for the Eugene Area," New Trajectory:  A blog for Ceasefire Oregon, March 2, 2011, ("Harry Hanus, age 74, shot and killed his wife, Barbara, before taking his own life")

Canada: Russian bride leaves elderly man with $25 K welfare bill

Another example of an older person who was easily persuaded to act in someone else's best interests, not his own. The Canadian government, instead of helping him, is billing him.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/russian-bride-leaves-elderly-man-25k-welfare-bill-094830580.html

An 82-year-old B.C. pensioner is on the hook to the government for $25,000, after marrying a Russian woman who left him the day after she got permanent resident status in Canada.

“Several times I thought I will have a nervous breakdown over this,” said Heinz Munz, of Black Creek.

Munz said he believes his now ex-wife used him, with the help of her daughter, to get legal status in Canada. He is going public because the B.C. government is now forcing him to pay for social assistance she collected after she left.

Massachusetts: Bob Joyce on Elder Abuse, etc. - Vote No on Question 2

Dear Editor:

It's not clear why The Bulletin titled Joe Galeota's recent column as it did ["Terrible," October 11, 2012].

If it's because the column offered no information about the content of the physician-prescribed suicide referendum, I agree. That is terrible. . . .

Let's get serious, and consider just a few of the many reasons why voters should defeat this flawed bill.

The referendum shockingly increases the risk of abuse to elders, many of whom do not have loving families and/or have lost their circle of friends and/or have no one to advocate for them. We should consider that Massachusetts had 19,500 reported cases of elder abuse in 2011. There are insufficient elder abuse investigators to keep up with the 54 new cases reported each day. One study has suggested that there are 23.5 unreported cases for every one reported case.

The referendum does not even provide the level of protection required when a person signs a will in Massachusetts (i.e., two disinterested witnesses), and there is absolutely no oversight at the time the lethal drugs would be administered. 

The Massachusetts Medical Society, representing more than 24,000 physicians and medical students, opposes the bill. So does the American Medical Society.

Insurance companies, hospitals and governmental medical providers have a clear and compelling financial interest in denying us of adequate end-of-life care.

How much do you trust insurers, hospitals and governments? Unless you answer "with my life," you should oppose physician-prescribed suicide and vote NO on Question Two.

It would indeed be "terrible"  if we allow this referendum to pass!

Robert W. Joyce

Persons Living With HIV/AIDS: Is This What You Want? To be Just Like Us?

By Margaret Dore, Esq.

Some HIV/AIDS groups have endorsed Ballot Question 2, which seeks to legalize assisted suicide in Massachusetts via a proposed act.  This post suggests that these groups and/or persons living with HIV/AIDS should give the issue a second look. 

1.  "Terminal" Does Not Mean "Dying" 

The proposed act applies to persons with a "terminal disease," defined in terms of less than six months to live.[1]  In Oregon, where there is a similar act, the six months to live is determined without requiring treatment.[2] 

In other words, a person living with HIV/AIDS, who is doing well, but who is dependent on treatment to live, is "terminal" for the purpose of assisted suicide eligibility. 

2.  The Significance of a Terminal Label

Once someone is labeled "terminal," an easy justification can be made that his or her treatment should be denied in favor of someone more deserving.  In Oregon, "terminal" patients are not only denied treatment, they are offered assisted suicide instead.  In a recent affidavit, Oregon doctor Ken Stevens states:

"9.  Under the Oregon Health Plan, there is . . .  a financial incentive towards suicide because the Plan will not necessarily pay for a patient’s treatment.  For example, patients with cancer are denied treatment if they have a "less than 24 months median survival with treatment" and fit other criteria. . . . 

12. All such persons . . .  will . . . be denied treatment. Their suicides under Oregon’s assisted suicide act will be covered."[3]

Dr. Stevens concludes:

"14. The Oregon Health Plan is a government health plan administered by the State of Oregon. If assisted suicide is legalized in [your jurisdiction], your government health plan could follow a similar pattern. If so, the plan will pay for a patient to die, but not to live."[4]

3.  Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup

In Oregon, the most well known persons denied treatment and offered suicide are Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup.[5]  Neither saw this event as a celebration of their "choice."  Wagner said: "I'm not ready to die."[6]  Stroup said: "This is my life they’re playing with."[7] 

4.  Proposals for Expansion

I live in Washington State, where assisted suicide is legal under an act passed in 2008.[8]  Four years later, there have already been proposals to expand our act to non-terminal people.[9]  Moreover, this year, there was a Seattle Times column suggesting euthanasia as a solution for people unable to afford care, which would be involuntary euthanasia for those persons who want to live.[10]

Prior to our law's being passed, I never heard anyone talk like this.

Is this what you want?

To be just like us?

Legal assisted suicide puts anyone with a significant health condition at risk of being steered to suicide.  For other reasons to vote against assisted suicide, please click here for talking points.  I hope that AIDS groups and people living with AIDS reconsider any support of Ballot Question No. 2.  Thank you.

* * *

Margaret Dore is a lawyer in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. She is also President of Choice is an Illusion, a non-profit corporation opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia.  Ms. Dore has been licensed to practice law since 1986. She is a former Law Clerk to the Washington State Supreme Court. She has several published court cases and many published scholarly articles. Her viewpoint is that people should be in control of their own fates, but that assisted suicide laws do not deliver. This year, she had an editorial published in the NY Times: "Assisted Suicide: A Recipe for Elder Abuse." For more information see www.margaretdore.com and www.choiceillusion.org

Defeating Assisted Suicide Before it Gets Started

I'm giving a lecture this weekend titled: "Arguing Smart: Defeating Assisted Suicide & Euthanasia Before it Gets Started."

The course description is below.  A hard copy of the course materials can be viewed by clicking here.

Margaret Dore

Course Description:

In 2010, assisted suicide advocates targeted Idaho for legalization of assisted suicide, which they termed "aid in dying." Their legal director owned a home there and was in the state actively meeting people, talking to newspapers and otherwise drumming up support. The legal director had also got an article published in The Advocate, the official publication of the Idaho State Bar Association. And then she was defeated by nine well-placed letters.

Ripping off Grandma: Why seniors should practice tough love

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/household-finances/ripping-off-grandma-why-seniors-should-practice-tough-love/article4614312/

ROB CARRICK, The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Oct. 15 2012, 8:07 PM EDT
Last updated Tuesday, Oct. 16 2012, 9:18 AM EDT

The Bank of Grandma and Grandpa needs to toughen up.

It’s one thing for seniors to plan inheritances for family members and provide cash gifts when affordable.

Where they must set limits is in co-signing or guaranteeing loans for relatives.

Seniors guaranteeing loans is bad business and it also comes dangerously close to elder financial abuse, an unseen but serious problem that can leave seniors destitute.

Elder financial abuse means the illegal or unauthorized use of seniors’ assets – money or property. Laura Tamblyn Watts, a lawyer and senior fellow at the Canadian Centre for Elder Law, said research shows one in 12 seniors will experience financial abuse. Given how under-reported the problem is, she suspects the actual figure is one in eight.

What about the seriously ill or disabled people who want to live?

http://doughtyblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/10/what-about-the-seriously-ill-or-disabled-people-who-want-to-live.html

The "Liverpool Pathway":  "It comes down to this: there are a lot of people who believe that, rather than trying to help their loved ones, hospitals have been keen to kill them off."

What about the seriously ill or disabled people who want to live?

By Stephen Doughty, 12 October 2012 6:56 PM

We have heard an awful lot about the suffering of people who bear terrible afflictions or disabilities and who wish to die. We have heard very little about the desperately sick who want to live, and the families who stand by them in hope.

It is looking like we have got this the wrong way round.

The highly organised campaign for assisted dying has brought together pressure groups, think tanks, celebrities like Sir Terry Pratchett, and some fairly prominent politicians, notably in recent years Tony Blair’s Lord Chancellor and one-time flatmate, Lord Falconer.

It has been based around a brilliantly conceived series of legal cases in which the judiciary have been presented with deeply affecting hard cases. Each one has asked for a modest legal concession, usually involving human rights and the 1961 law that makes helping with a suicide a serious crime.

The individuals who have brought these cases are sometimes merely sympathetic and at others pitiable, as in the recent instance of Tony Nicklinson, the 58-year-old victim of 'locked-in syndrome' who lost his call for help from his doctor to die in the High Court in August. Mr Nicklinson died a few days after his legal defeat.

Occasionally the legal campaigns have scored successes. The most notable was that of multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy, who persuaded the Law Lords that the Director of Public Prosecutions should provide guidance on whether her husband might face prosecution for assisted suicide, were he to help her travel to the Dignitas clinic in Zurich to die.

As a result of the Purdy case, DPP Keir Starmer QC introduced rules on assisted dying prosecutions that mean no-one is likely to be prosecuted, with the risk of a 14-year-jail term, if they help in the death of someone who is a suffering relative or friend, and if they act out of compassion rather than malice or greed.

However you paint it, this is a major change in the law as set down by Parliament, a law which takes no account of the motives of the individual aiding and abetting the suicide.

Indeed, Mr Starmer has brought no prosecutions against anybody from the trail of stricken families who have helped members travel to Switzerland to die.

What is interesting is that, despite all the campaigning, all the high-profile court cases, all the BBC interviews, all the endless hand-wringing about the cruelty of keeping those who are suffering alive against their will, few people seem to want to take advantage of the new right to die.

We do not have very recent figures, but I would guess that no more than 200 British people have died at Dignitas since the clinic became well-known here in 2003.

It is a number small enough to raise the question of how big, really, is the demand for assisted dying?

The campaign for assisted dying has certainly been effective in influencing care of the incapacitated in the Health Service.

It was surely a factor in the successful passage of the Mental Capacity Act, pushed through by Lord Falconer in the teeth of a rebellion by backbench Labour MPs, which gave legal status to living wills. These mean people can leave orders for their doctors to kill them by withdrawing nourishment and fluid by tube if they become too sick to speak for themselves.

The assisted dying campaign formed the background to the introduction of the Liverpool Care Pathway into hospitals across the country. This, for those who have not noticed, is the system by which medical staff withdraw treatment from those judged to be close to death, in the cause of easing their passing. It often involves heavy sedation and the removal of nourishment and fluid tubes.

I do not wish to try to step into the shoes of those medical professionals and care workers who deal every day with people at the extreme end of life and in the depths of the worst illnesses. I have no qualifications or knowledge to second guess their decisions, and no intention of criticising those who work with great professionalism and compassion in jobs that are far beyond my capability.

But all the indications suggest there are many families who are unhappy with the way in which their relatives have died in hospitals, and that they are increasingly willing to complain about it.

Many of these people may be speaking out of misdirected grief. As one well-informed MP put it to me this week, very few expect a loved one who goes into hospital to die, but people do have the habit of dying. Some of those complaining may be troublemakers, some inspired by political or religious agendas.

Nevertheless there seem to be a lot of them. And they are not celebrities or legal grandees or Westminster faces. They are little people, people like you and me, not the kind you usually hear on the radio or see on the TV.

The courageous Professor Patrick Pullicino, the hospital consultant who defied the NHS consensus to speak out against the Liverpool Care Pathway this summer, reckoned it is used in around 130,000 deaths each year. That is a number that dwarfs the assisted dying lobby.

I think we are going to hear a lot more about the Liverpool Care Pathway, and I think the medical professions, the Department of Health, and a number of politicians are going to have to put some time into considering what has been happening.

It comes down to this: there are a lot of people who believe that, rather than trying to help their loved ones, hospitals have been keen to kill them off.

They believe that, while the assisted dying lobby has been parading in the courts and publicising itself on the BBC, assisted dying has quietly become a reality in our hospitals.

Massachusetts: Vote no on Question 2

"Ignoring any moral issues, the initiative is vulnerable to abuse and should not be passed into law."

By Anthony Speranza

http://www.salemnews.com/opinion/x1684126269/Column-Vote-no-on-Question-2

This year in Massachusetts, voters will decide on Question 2: an initiative petition to legalize physician-assisted suicide in the commonwealth. Ignoring any moral issues, the initiative is vulnerable to abuse and should not be passed into law.

Dignity 2012, a group in support of the issue referred to as "Death with Dignity," claims the proposed law "contains strict safeguards to ensure that the patient is making a voluntary and informed decision." The safeguards written into the law, however, are insufficient. First, nearly all responsibility rests in the hands of a patient's physician. Section 6 of the initiative states that no patient shall be prescribed the life-ending medication if either of two physicians deem that the patient suffers from a "psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression." While the theory behind this precaution is practical, it falls short of effective. Only 15 days separate the date of request from the date of prescription of the lethal dose. There is no clear definition of what tests must be run in this time to check a patient's mental capacity. According to Jennifer Popik, a medical ethics attorney, "There is no requirement that the patient be given a psychiatric evaluation... This means that a physician ... can prescribe suicide to that patient without even a specialist's evaluation." The "safeguard" concerning mental health is rendered useless because a psychiatric evaluation is not compulsory. A similar law in Oregon serves as a warning: According to a report by the Oregon Public Health Department, of the 71 patients who chose physician-assisted suicide last year, only one was referred for psychiatric evaluation.