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.

Others Dictated For Her

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/mailbag/mother-s-death-provided-painful-personal-example-of-need-to/article_3c8a1d98-1a9c-11e4-bb8e-001a4bcf887a.html

The July 25 guest column by Sara Myers and Dustin Hankinson begins with a discussion of pain, “great pain,” specifically. The paragraph goes on to use the phrase “great pain” to justify “death with dignity,” meaning assisted suicide and euthanasia.

With their column, I couldn’t help but think of my mother’s last years and the decision of others that it was time for her to die. Pain was used as a justification for increases in her medication – to get the job done. This happened three times before she finally died in the hospital on Sept. 6, 2010. The coroner’s report, case No. 100906, lists the cause of death as congestive heart failure with oxygen deprivation and “fentanyl therapy.” The manner of death is listed as “accident.”

Fentanyl is reported “to be 80 to 200 times as potent as morphine.” It’s also well known that fentanyl patch problems cause overdoses, injuries and deaths. See www.aboutlawsuits.com/fentanyl-patch-problems-continue-overdose-deaths-55136. A 100 mcg/hour fentanyl patch has a range within 24 hours of 1.9-3.8 ng/mL. Mom’s death result was 2.7 ng/mL on/or about 48 hours.

A complaint was filed by me with the Montana Board of Medical Examiners, No. 2012-069-MED. The screening panel dismissed the complaint with prejudice, which means that the board may not consider the complaint in the future.

Since then, I have talked with other people who have had similar experiences involving the death of a family member via a medical overdose. Please see here: http://www.choiceillusionmontana.org/2013/04/dont-give-doctors-more-power-to-abuse.html

The column by Myers and Hankinson states, “I believe one should have control of one’s life including its ending.“

I agree with that statement. However, my mother did not have that control. Others dictated for her. Please rethink legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia so that we do not give others even more power to kill.

Gail Bell,
Bozeman

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.

A suggestion that Bishop Tutu confuses assisted suicide with “switching off life support.” If so, perhaps we are to blame.

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA*

www.margaretdore.com

www.choiceillusion.org

An assisted suicide bill is coming up for a vote in the UK House of Lords.  The bill, HL Bill 6, is based on similar laws in Oregon and Washington State, USA.

Assisted Suicide and HL Bill 6

HL Bill 6, like the Oregon and Washington laws on which it is based, applies to patients who have been given 6 months or less to live.  Such patients may, in fact, have years to live.  One reason is that doctors’ predictions of life expectancy can be wrong.  See Margaret Dore, “Falconer Assisted Suicide Bill: ‘Eligible’ Patients May Have Years, Even Decades, to Live,” Choice is an Illusion, July 12, 2014.

Bishop Tutu’s Remarks

I don't know Bishop Tutu, but I have seen him speak and I admire him very much.  He has now, however, voiced his support for “assisted dying”, with reference to the death of Nelson Mandela.

According to a New Zealand blog post, Bishop Tutu may be confusing the withdrawal of life support with assisted suicide.  The post says in part:

Interesting that Bishop Tutu now admits publicly that Mandela was indeed on life support and that “prolonging his life was an affront to his dignity”, according to an article on BBC.com.

Switching off life support is, regardless, different from euthanasia and assisted suicide.  When life support is switched off the patient doesn't necessarily die. Consider, for example, this case from Washington State reported in the Seattle Weekly:

[I]nstead of dying as expected, the man slowly began to get better. [Dr. J. Randall Curtis] doesn't know exactly why, but guesses that for that patient, "being off the ventilator was probably better than being on it.  He was more comfortable, less stressed." Curtis says the man lived for at least a year afterwards. 

With assisted suicide and euthanasia, the patient deliberately kills himself or is killed by another person.  See e.g., AMA Code of Medical Ethics, Opinion 2.21 (defining euthanasia).  Moreover, that patient could have had years to live.

The Blame is on us

Perhaps the blame for the confusion should be placed on us and the language of the debate in which both sides have been referring to assisted suicide and euthanasia as “assisted dying.”  Perhaps it’s time for those of us who oppose legalization to call a spade a spade and eliminate the misleading term, “assisted dying” from our vocabulary. Our very lives may depend on it.

*  Margaret Dore is an attorney in Washington State USA where assisted suicide is legal.  She is also President of Choice is an Illusion, a human rights organization opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia. Her publications include Margaret K. Dore, "''Death with Dignity': What Do We Advise Our Clients?," King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, May 2009 (regarding Washington's law).  See also Margaret Dore, Quick Facts About Assisted Suicide, at http://www.choiceillusion.org/2013/11/quick-facts-about-assisted-suicide_11.html

UK: Falconer Assisted Suicide Bill: "Eligible" Patients May Have Years, Even Decades, to Live

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

www.margaretdore.com

www.choiceillusion.org

In the UK, HL Bill 6 is an assisted suicide law proposed by Lord Falconer, which is based on the Oregon and Washington assisted suicide laws.  Bill 6 would legalize assisted suicide for persons with a "terminal illness," defined in terms of a prediction of less than six months to live.[1]  The Oregon and Washington laws have a similar six months to live criteria.[2]

Under all three laws, "eligible" patients may have years, even decades, to live.  This is true for the following the following reasons: 

1.      Predictions of life expectancy can be wrong.  

Patients may have years or even decades to live because predicting life expectancy is not an exact science.  Consider John Norton who was diagnosed with ALS.  He was told that he would get progressively worse (be paralyzed) and die in three to five years.  Instead, the disease progression stopped on its own.  In a 2012 affidavit, at age 74, he states:

If assisted suicide or euthanasia had been available to me in the 1950's, I would have missed the bulk of my life and my life yet to come.  http://www.massagainstassistedsuicide.org/2012/09/john-norton-cautionary-tale.html [3]

2.      The six months to live is determined without treatment. 

Consider Oregon resident, Jeanette Hall, who was diagnosed with cancer and decided to "do" Oregon's law.  Her doctor, Kenneth Stevens, didn't believe in assisted suicide and encouraged her to be treated instead.  It is now 14 years later and she is "thrilled" to be alive.  This is Dr. Steven's affidavit filed by the Canadian government in Leblanc v. Canada, now dismissed, discussing Jeanette.  http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/signed-stevens-aff-9-18-12-as-filed.pdf   This is Jeanette's affidavit, also filed by the Canadian government:  http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/jeanette-hall-affidavit.pdf  

3.      In Oregon, the six months to live criteria is now being interpreted to include chronic conditions such as diabetes.  

Oregon doctor, William Toffler, explains: 

Our law applies to “terminal” patients who are predicted to have less than six months to live. In practice, this idea of terminal has recently become stretched to include people with chronic conditions such as chronic lower respiratory disease and diabetes. Persons with these conditions are considered terminal if they are dependent on their medications, such as insulin, to live. They are unlikely to die in less than six months unless they don’t receive their medications. Such persons, with treatment, could otherwise have years or even decades to live.[4]  

* * *
[1]  See HL Bill 6, Sections 2, at http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/assisteddying.html (defining "terminal illness" as an "inevitably progressive condition which cannot be reversed by treatment," and for which the patient "is reasonably expected to die in six months.").
[2]  See ORS 127.800 s.1.01(12) and RCW 70.245.010(13) at    http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Pages/ors.aspx and http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.245.010  (both stating:  "'Terminal disease' means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months.").
[3]  See also:  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? The Seattle Weekly, January 14, 2009 http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/terminal-uncertainty.pdf and http://www.seattleweekly.com/2009-01-14/news/terminal-uncertainty
[4]  Letter from William Toffler, MD, to the New Haven Register, published February 26, 2014, 2^nd letter at http://www.nhregister.com/opinion/20140226/letters-to-the-editor-dying-deserve-right-to-choice  See also, Dore Memo at pp 6-7, at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/nj-a2270-legal-analysis_001.pdf and Margaret Dore, “Oregon's new assisted suicide report: chronic conditions;  people with money and more,” February 19, 2014, at http://www.choiceillusion.org/2014/01/oregons-new-assisted-suicide-report.html 

What results from assisted suicide laws

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-results-from-assisted-suicide-laws/2014/07/11/2704d612-0768-11e4-9ae6-0519a2bd5dfa_story.html

July 11 at 5:42 PM 

As a former three-term state representative in New Hampshire, I was alarmed to see that Maryland is being urged to adopt an assisted-suicide law similar to those in Oregon and Washington state [" Controlling the end of life, Local Opinions, July 6]. 

Four months ago, the New Hampshire House rejected such a law by a 219 to 66 vote. Many representatives in the Democratic-controlled House initially thought they were for the bill but became uncomfortable when they studied the issue further. 

Contrary to promoting "choice" for older people, assisted-suicide laws are a prescription for abuse. They empower heirs and others to pressure and abuse older people to cut short their lives, especially when they have money. No assisted-suicide bill could correct this huge problem.

Nancy Elliott, Merrimack, N.H.

Washington’s ‘Death with Dignity’ law imperils the poor

http://realchangenews.org/index.php/site/archives/9122

Last week’s article by an assisted suicide/euthanasia advocate struck me as a bizarre article for Real Change, which advocates for the dignity and self-determination of the poor. (“Terminally ill patients face shortage of right-to-die drug amid controversy over capital punishment,” Real Change, June 18)

Washington’s assisted suicide law was passed in 2008 and went into effect in 2009. This was after a deceptive initiative campaign promised us that “only” the patient would be allowed to take the lethal dose. Our law does not say that anywhere. See Margaret K. Dore, “’Death with Dignity,” What Do We Advise Our Clients?,” King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, May 2009, available at https://www.kcba.org/newsevents/barbulletin/BView.aspx?Month=05&Year=2009&AID=article5.htm.

In Oregon, which has a similar law, there are documented cases of that state’s Medicaid program using the law to steer patients to suicide. In other words, indigent patients are offered suicide in lieu of desired treatments to cure or to extend life. The most well-known cases are Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup.  See: Susan Donaldson James, “Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon,” ABC News, August 6, 2008, at http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1; and “Letter noting assisted suicide raises questions,” KATU TV, July 30, 2008, at http://www.katu.com/news/specialreports/26119539.html  See also the Affidavit of Kenneth Stevens, MD, filed by the Canadian government in Leblanc v. Canada, available at http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/signed-stevens-aff-9-18-12.pdf.

Finally, consider this quote from a March 8, 2012 Jerry Large column in the Seattle Times. He says that at least a couple of his readers suggested euthanasia “if you couldn’t save enough money to see you through your old age.” http://seattletimes.com/text/2017693023.html  For the poor, this would be non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. 

So much for the dignity and self-determination of the poor.

Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA *

Seattle

* www.margaretdore.com & www.choiceillusion.org 

Legal/Policy Analysis Against New Jersey Bill, A2270 (Assisted Suicide & Euthanasia)

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

A legal/policy analysis against New Jersey's proposed assisted suicide/euthanasia bill, A2270, can be viewed by clicking here.

If the analysis is "too big" for your computer, you can view it in pieces, by clicking the following links to: the cover sheet and index; the memo; and the appendices.

There are three main points:

1.  A2270 is titled "Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act."  "Aid in Dying" is a euphemism for assisted suicide and euthanasia.  The title is, regardless, deceptive because it implies that A2270 is limited to people who are dying, which is untrue.  A2270 applies to people who may have years, even decades, to live.  See memo, pp. 5-8.

2. The bill is a recipe for elder abuse with the most obvious reason being a complete lack of oversight when the lethal dose is administered to the patient.  Even if he struggled, who would know? See memo, pp. 8-17.

3. The bill lacks transparency and accountability.  Id., pp. 17-19.

The last part of the memo is a discussion of the "Oregon and Washington Experience," with supporting documentation attached.

Please contact me with any questions or concerns at contact@choiceillusion.org or margaretdore@margaretdore.com.

Margaret Dore, President
Choice is an Illusion, a human rights organization
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.
www.choiceillusion.org
www.margaretdore.com
1001 4th Avenue, 44th Floor
Seattle, WA 98154

Assisted suicide is a mistake

http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/opinion/readers/2014/06/11/letter-assisted-suicide-mistake/10348363/

I am a doctor in Oregon, where physician-assisted suicide is legal. I understand that your Legislature is considering taking a similar step.

I was first exposed to this issue in 1982, shortly before my first wife died of cancer. We had just visited her doctor. As we were leaving, he had suggested that she overdose herself on medication.

I still remember the look of horror on her face. She said, “Ken, he wants me to kill myself.”

Our assisted-suicide law was passed in 1997. In 2000, one of my patients was adamant she would use our law. Over three or four visits, I stalled her and ultimately convinced her to be treated instead. Nearly 14 years later, she is thrilled to be alive.

In Oregon, the combination of assisted-suicide legalization and prioritized medical care based on prognosis has created a danger for my patients on the Oregon Health Plan (Medicaid).

Helpful treatments are often not covered. The plan will cover the patient’s suicide.

Protect your health care. Tell your legislators to vote “no” on assisted suicide.

Don’t make Oregon’s mistake.

KENNETH STEVENS, M.D.

Sherwood, Ore.

Arizona Strengthens its Law Against Assisted Suicide

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/04/30/4993778/brewer-signs-bill-targeting-assisted.html

Brewer Signs Bill Targeting Assisted Suicide

PHOENIX — Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has signed a bill that aims to make it easier to prosecute people who help someone commit suicide.

Republican Rep. Justin Pierce of Mesa says his bill will make it easier for attorneys to prosecute people for manslaughter for assisting in suicide by more clearly defining what it means to "assist."

House Bill 2565 defines assisting in suicide as providing the physical means used to commit suicide, such as a gun. The bill originally also defined assisted suicide as "offering" the means to commit suicide, but a Senate amendment omitted that word.

The proposal was prompted by a difficult prosecution stemming from a 2007 assisted suicide in Maricopa County.

Brewer signed the bill on Wednesday.

Attend the New Hampshire Victory Celebration Dinner!

Featured Speaker
John B. Kelly

Former New Hampshire State Representative, Nancy Elliott has organized a "Victory Celebration Dinner" to celebrate the overwhelming defeat of assisted suicide in New Hampshire. The dinner is sponsored by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The dinner speaker will be John B. Kelly, New England Regional Director for Not Dead Yet.  

The dinner will also celebrate opposition to assisted suicide throughout New England and Quebec.  

Where:  Crowne Plaza Hotel, Nashua New Hampshire, USA

When:    Friday, May 30, 2014

Cost:     $35.00

Book a room at the Crowne Plaza Hotel for $119 under the name "Euthanasia Prevention Coalition."  

Please make payments for the dinner to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Box 611309 Port Huron MI 48061-1309, or contact Alex Schadenberg at: 1-877-439-3348 or info@epcc.ca

Please consider a generous donation to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Not Dead Yet and other groups that were instrumental to defeating assisted suicide in New England and Quebec this year.

To donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, click here.

To donate to Not Dead Yet, click here.

I want assistance living, not dying

http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4465271-i-want-assistance-living-not-dying/

Assisted suicide

I was born with cerebral palsy and I have lived all of my life with pain. I now have scoliosis, which affects my mobility and gives me further pain. My prognosis is living with a wheelchair.

MP Steven Fletcher has introduced euthanasia bills with language that specifically focuses on people with disabilities because his bills are about him dying by euthanasia.

Fletcher seems to be saying that he does not value his life, but I value my life and the lives of others with disabilities. His "right to die" ends at the point where it affects other people. Don't take me down with your death wish.

As a member of parliament, Fletcher has the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of people with disabilities, to work toward improving social supports and living opportunities, but his euthanasia bills say that our lives are not worth living.

People with disabilities are at risk from euthanasia because they are often dependent on others who legally have the right to make decisions for them. Any legislation that lessens protections in law for people with disabilities is very concerning.

I have overcome many physical and social barriers in my life, I am busy wanting to live, but Fletcher's bill directly affects my right to live.

People with disabilities, who live with a positive mindset, show society how to overcome challenges. We see these challenges as opportunities for personal growth.

Fletcher wants your pity. People with disabilities don't want your pity and we don't want your death.

The concept of euthanasia creates great fear for me. Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide abandons me as a person. That society would rather help me die with dignity, than help me live with dignity. We will fight for the right of people with disabilities to live with equality, value and acceptance.

Steven Passmore, Hamilton                             

This woman needed help NOT Dignitas

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/richard-and-judy/469987/The-tale-of-an-unwarranted-death-this-woman-needed-help-NOT-Dignitas

By: Richard and Judy

Published: Sat, April 12, 2014

IN a week of disturbing stories right across the news gauntlet – Peaches, Pistorius, the political car-crash of Maria Miller – one dark and troubling tale went almost unnoticed: The death of a retired art teacher, only identified as Anne, by assisted suicide at the infamous Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. 

The truly disturbing nature of Anne’s story is this: she was not suffering from any form of terminal disease. True, at 89, she had had her health problems – diseases of the lung and heart, requiring spells in hospital (which she hated). But she wasn’t dying of cancer, or one of the nasties such as Huntington’s Chorea, or multiple organ failure.

Anne simply felt alienated from the modern world. Speaking days before she died – from a lethal dose of drugs provided by the clinic – she said she felt she faced a choice either to “adapt or die”, and announced she was not prepared to adapt to a world in which technology took precedence over humanity. She added that she had become frustrated with the trappings of modern life, such as fast-food, consumerism, and the amount of time people spend watching television.

“They say ‘adapt or die,’” she said, having already made the decision to take the latter option by drinking a deadly dose of barbiturates. “I find myself swimming against the current, and you can’t do that. If you can’t join them, get off... all the old fashioned ways of doing things have gone.”

Now you may or may not agree with Anne’s world view, but judging by her comments (and there were more in the same vein) it sounds very much to me as if the poor woman was suffering from a classic case of clinical depression – feelings of hopelessness, alienation, despair and suicidal thoughts.

Is that a condition Dignitas should be giving itself permission to treat with a lethal cocktail of drugs? I don’t think so. Its own rules state that it will only provide help in cases of “illness which will lead inevitably to death, unendurable pain or an unendurable disability”.

Anne’s niece, Linda, 54, accompanied her aunt to Zurich and was by her side when she died. She has said she “cannot think of a better death”.

Hmm. I don’t doubt her personal belief in that statement and I am sure she genuinely believes she did the right thing by her aunt. But Anne’s death raises disturbing questions. What if she’d been 10 years younger, say, 79, but held exactly the same bleak view of the world? Would she still have been offered assisted suicide?

Or what about 69? Or 59? At exactly what point does the combination of (undiagnosed) depression plus advancing years get the thumbs-up from the Dignitas doctors?

Personally I have always supported the principle of assisted suicide but Anne’s exit from this world has made me seriously wonder if it can ever be properly controlled.

This disturbing story could be the thin end of a very unpleasant wedge.