Dear Senators:
This letter addresses assisted suicide and the windfall profit issue. By this, I mean the situation where people pay for health insurance, but don't use it much. Then, if assisted suicide is legal and they do get sick, the insurer can legally encourage them to kill themselves. If this occurs, there is financial gravy for the insurer.
In the US, the head of the main group promoting assisted suicide is a former "managed care executive." See http://www.margaretdore.com/info/coombs_lee_bio_001.pdf In 2009, she wrote an op-ed defending the Oregon Health Plan after it denied coverage to a patient. Her op-ed also encouraged readers to support a public policy discouraging patients from seeking cures, presumably by reducing coverage options. See here: http://www.margaretdore.com/pdf/Coombs_Lee_against_Wagner.pdf
Here in Washington State, her group was the leading force in a ballot measure campaign that legalized assisted suicide. Our law, like the House Version of S.77, contains coercive provisions, which make it less likely that patients will get their choices. For example, in both laws, there is no oversight when the lethal dose is administered. Even if the patient struggled, who would know?
To view a short analysis of the House Version of S.77, go here: http://www.choiceillusion.org/2013/04/vote-no-on-s77-legal-analysis.html
To view a short article about Washington's law, go here: https://www.kcba.org/newsevents/barbulletin/BView.aspx?Month=05&Year=2009&AID=article5.htm
Do not be fooled.
Please vote No.
Margaret Dore
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.
Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation
www.margaretdore.com
www.choiceillusion.org
1001 4th Avenue, 44th Floor
Seattle, WA 98154
206 389 1754
206 389 1562
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 Opposes Right to Die in South Africa
- Dore Lead Witness In Rhode Island
Monday, May 6, 2013
Monday, April 29, 2013
Vote NO on S.77, A Legal Analysis
Updated May 8, 2013
Dear Vermont Legislator:This letter provides a legal analysis of the assisted suicide bill, S.77. To view my memo containing that analysis, click here. To view the memo's attachments, which include a copy of S.77, click here.
The memo's main points include:
1. The bill is not limited to people who are dying. Some of the people at issue will have years to live. The bill encourages such persons to throw away their lives.
2. The claim that the bill will assure patient control is untrue.
3. There is a complete lack of oversight over administration of the lethal dose, which allows it to be administered without patient consent (and without anyone knowing that administration was without patient consent).
4. The application process has problems: (1) an heir who will benefit from death is allowed to talk for the patient during the lethal dose request process; and (2) there is nothing to prevent an heir from procuring the patient's signature under circumstances that would constitute undue influence in the context of a will.
5. Legalization will create new paths of elder abuse. I give the example of Thomas Middleton in Oregon.
6. Guardians and Conservators will not be able to protect their wards from being pushed to suicide and/or other involuntary death.
7. Legalization will bring stress, trauma and fear (with examples from Oregon and Washington).
8. In Washington, where we have now had legal assisted suicide for just four years, we have already had proposals to expand our law to direct euthanasia of non-terminal people. There has also been the the suggestion that we should employ euthanasia as a solution for people who can't afford their own care, which would be involuntary euthanasia.
9. Any claim that legalization will end murder-suicide and/or violent suicides is baloney.
Margaret Dore
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.
www.margaretdore.com
www.choiceillusion.org
1001 4th Avenue, 44th Floor
Seattle, WA 98154
206 389 1754
206 389 1562 direct line
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Vermont: Vote "NO" on S.77
I am a lawyer and a Democrat from Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. I hope that you will vote "No" on S.77, which seeks to legalize assisted suicide.
In 2011, I published an article in the Vermont Bar Journal, titled "Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Recipe for Elder Abuse and the Illusion of Personal Choice." A copy can be viewed here: http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/dore-vermont-bar-journal.pdf
The flaws that I identified in the above article are present in S.77, with the most obvious being a complete lack of oversight over administration of the lethal dose. This creates the opportunity for an heir, or someone else who will benefit from the patient's death, to administer the dose to the patient without his consent. For example, when the patient is asleep (the drugs used are water and alcohol soluble so that they can be injected).
You may also be interested in the following:
1. A Legal Analysis
Two years ago, I performed a legal analysis of H.274 and S.103, which are essentially the same bill as the current S.77. The flaws I identified in my analysis also exist in S.77 although some of the wording and citations are different. To view that analysis, go here: http://www.vermontagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/legal-analysis-of-h274-s103.html
2. The Thomas Middleton case
This is a case from Oregon in which physician-assisted suicide was part of an elder abuse fraud. See
3. My cases
In my law practice, I have had two clients whose parents signed up for the lethal dose.
In one case, one side of the family wanted the parent to take the lethal dose while the other did not. The parent spent the last months of his life traumatized and/or struggling over the decision of whether or not to kill himself. My client was also traumatized. The parent did not take the lethal dose and died a natural death.
In the other case, the parent reportedly refused to take the lethal dose at his first suicide party ("I'm going to bed. You're not killing me") and was high on alcohol the next night when he took the dose at a second party. The person who told this to my client then recanted, apparently concerned about his own criminal liability. My client did not want to pursue the matter further. As a lawyer, I couldn't help but notice that if the parent's much younger wife had divorced him, he would have got the house. This way, she got everything.
To learn more about our law, please read this article: https://www.kcba.org/newsevents/barbulletin/BView.aspx?Month=05&Year=2009&AID=article5.htm
4. Washington's "Expansion" Issue
In 2009, our assisted suicide law went into effect. By 2011, there were newspaper proposals to expand that law to direct euthanasia for non-terminal persons. In 2012, a friend sent me this article suggesting euthanasia for people unable to afford their own care, which would be involuntary euthanasia. See Jerry Large, "Planning for old age at a premium," The Seattle Times, March 8, 2012, at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2017693023.html ("After Monday's column, . . . a few [readers] suggested that if you couldn't save enough money to see you through your old age, you shouldn't expect society to bail you out. At least a couple mentioned euthanasia as a solution.") (Emphasis added).
Don't make our mistake.
Margaret Dore
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.
Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation
1001 4th Avenue, 44th Floor
Seattle, WA 98154 USA
206 389 1754
Monday, April 22, 2013
Protect Health Care; Keep Assisted Suicide Out of Montana
http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_03dfa5e3-26fa-588f-8765-b85fc6f81622.html?comment_form=true
April 22, 2013
I was disturbed to see the (April 7) opinion by Eric Kress promoting physician-assisted suicide. I am a cancer doctor with more than 40 years experience in Oregon, where physician-assisted suicide is legal. I am also a professor emeritus and former chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Oregon Health and Science University.
I first became involved with the assisted-suicide issue shortly before my first wife died of cancer in 1982. We had just made what would be her last visit with 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.”
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). First, there is a financial incentive for patients to commit suicide: the plan will cover the cost. Second, the plan will not necessarily cover the cost of treatment due to statistical criteria. For example, patients with cancer are denied treatment if they are determined to have “less than 24 months median survival with treatment” and fit other criteria. Some of these patients, if treated, would however have many years to live, as much as five, 10 or 20 years depending on the type of cancer. This is because there are always some people who beat the odds. The plan will cover the cost of their suicides.
In Oregon, the mere presence of legal assisted-suicide steers patients to suicide even when there is no coverage issue. One of my patients was adamant she would use the law. I convinced her to be treated instead. Twelve years later she is thrilled to be alive.
Don’t make Oregon’s mistake.
Kenneth Stevens, MD,
Sherwood, Ore.
April 22, 2013
I was disturbed to see the (April 7) opinion by Eric Kress promoting physician-assisted suicide. I am a cancer doctor with more than 40 years experience in Oregon, where physician-assisted suicide is legal. I am also a professor emeritus and former chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Oregon Health and Science University.
I first became involved with the assisted-suicide issue shortly before my first wife died of cancer in 1982. We had just made what would be her last visit with 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.”
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). First, there is a financial incentive for patients to commit suicide: the plan will cover the cost. Second, the plan will not necessarily cover the cost of treatment due to statistical criteria. For example, patients with cancer are denied treatment if they are determined to have “less than 24 months median survival with treatment” and fit other criteria. Some of these patients, if treated, would however have many years to live, as much as five, 10 or 20 years depending on the type of cancer. This is because there are always some people who beat the odds. The plan will cover the cost of their suicides.
In Oregon, the mere presence of legal assisted-suicide steers patients to suicide even when there is no coverage issue. One of my patients was adamant she would use the law. I convinced her to be treated instead. Twelve years later she is thrilled to be alive.
Don’t make Oregon’s mistake.
Kenneth Stevens, MD,
Sherwood, Ore.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Montana: Great News! HB 505 Voted to the Floor!!!!
This afternoon, the Montana Senate "blasted" HB 505 to the floor in a 31 to 17 Vote!!!!
Thank you to everyone else who worked so hard to get us this far!!!
Yeah!!!!!
Yeah!!!!!
Margaret Dore
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
"Once in place, this 'trend' is not controllable"
Dear Senators:
For those of you who don't know me, I am an attorney in Washington state where physician-assisted suicide is legal. I am writing to urge you to not make Washington's mistake by allowing assisted suicide/euthanasia to become part of your state's legal fabric. Once in place, this "trend" is not controllable. I urge you to vote "Yes" on HB 505 to clearly state that assisted suicide is not legal in Montana.
In 2008, we voted for a law to legalize assisted suicide for persons predicted to have less than six months to live. Voters were promised that "only" the patient could take the lethal dose. Our law does not say that anywhere. By 2011, there were newspaper proposals to expand our law to direct euthanasia for non-terminal persons. Last year, a friend sent me this article in our largest paper suggesting euthanasia for people unable to afford their own care, which would be involuntary euthanasia. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2017693023.html ("After Monday's column, . . . a few [readers] suggested that if you couldn't save enough money to see you through your old age, you shouldn't expect society to bail you out. At least a couple mentioned euthanasia as a solution.") (Emphasis added).
In my law practice, I have had two clients whose parents signed up for the lethal dose.
In one case, one side of the family wanted the parent to take the lethal dose while the other did not. The parent spent the last months of his life traumatized and/or struggling over the decision of whether or not to kill himself. My client was also traumatized. The parent did not take the lethal dose and died a natural death
In the other case, it's unclear that the parent's death was voluntary. This was due to his reportedly refusing to take the lethal dose at his first suicide party and then being high on alcohol the next night when he drank the dose at a second party. (The person who told this to my client recanted). But, as a lawyer who has worked on divorce cases, I couldn't help but notice that if the parent's much younger wife had divorced him, the parent would have got the house. This way, the surviving wife got everything.
Meanwhile, my friends who provide elder care report that they now have to "guard" their clients in the hospital to avoid the initiation of "comfort care" (morphine overdose and the sudden death of the client). See e.g. http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2012/07/dear-montana-board-of-medical-examiners.html
Montana
In Montana, you have had similar developments. In 2007, the Baxter case was initiated seeking to legalize physician-assisted suicide for "terminally ill adult patients," the implication being that the practice would be limited to dying people. The proposed definition of "terminally ill adult patient," however, was broad enough to include an otherwise healthy 18 year old dependent on insulin. See http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/schrempp_wonderly_opn_ltr1.pdf
In late 2009, the Baxter opinion was issued in your Supreme Court ruling that doctors who assist a suicide in certain narrowly defined circumstances have a defense to prosecution if charged with homicide. Since then, I have been contacted by several Montanans describing the misuse or abuse of "comfort care" against their loved ones. Three of these persons have specifically endorsed HB 505, see for example, this letter by Carol Mungas, the widow of a prominent physician who was euthanized by nurses against his will. See http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2013/03/i-support-house-bill-505-which-clearly.html
Last month in the Senate Judiciary Committee, a doctor described his assisting three suicides in Montana. See http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013303260026
If he is not prosecuted, or if the prosecution fails, assisted suicides will thereby be encouraged and, given Washington's experience, there will be a push to expand the practice to less compelling cases, for example, persons with treatable diabetes. If, instead, HB 505 is enacted, there will be a clear statement going forward that assisted suicide is not legal in Montana.
This is why HB 505 is needed now.
Thank you for your consideration.
Margaret Dore
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.
Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation
www.margaretdore.com
www.choiceillusion.org
1001 4th Avenue, 44th Floor
Seattle, WA 98154
For those of you who don't know me, I am an attorney in Washington state where physician-assisted suicide is legal. I am writing to urge you to not make Washington's mistake by allowing assisted suicide/euthanasia to become part of your state's legal fabric. Once in place, this "trend" is not controllable. I urge you to vote "Yes" on HB 505 to clearly state that assisted suicide is not legal in Montana.
In 2008, we voted for a law to legalize assisted suicide for persons predicted to have less than six months to live. Voters were promised that "only" the patient could take the lethal dose. Our law does not say that anywhere. By 2011, there were newspaper proposals to expand our law to direct euthanasia for non-terminal persons. Last year, a friend sent me this article in our largest paper suggesting euthanasia for people unable to afford their own care, which would be involuntary euthanasia. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2017693023.html ("After Monday's column, . . . a few [readers] suggested that if you couldn't save enough money to see you through your old age, you shouldn't expect society to bail you out. At least a couple mentioned euthanasia as a solution.") (Emphasis added).
In my law practice, I have had two clients whose parents signed up for the lethal dose.
In one case, one side of the family wanted the parent to take the lethal dose while the other did not. The parent spent the last months of his life traumatized and/or struggling over the decision of whether or not to kill himself. My client was also traumatized. The parent did not take the lethal dose and died a natural death
In the other case, it's unclear that the parent's death was voluntary. This was due to his reportedly refusing to take the lethal dose at his first suicide party and then being high on alcohol the next night when he drank the dose at a second party. (The person who told this to my client recanted). But, as a lawyer who has worked on divorce cases, I couldn't help but notice that if the parent's much younger wife had divorced him, the parent would have got the house. This way, the surviving wife got everything.
Meanwhile, my friends who provide elder care report that they now have to "guard" their clients in the hospital to avoid the initiation of "comfort care" (morphine overdose and the sudden death of the client). See e.g. http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2012/07/dear-montana-board-of-medical-examiners.html
Montana
In Montana, you have had similar developments. In 2007, the Baxter case was initiated seeking to legalize physician-assisted suicide for "terminally ill adult patients," the implication being that the practice would be limited to dying people. The proposed definition of "terminally ill adult patient," however, was broad enough to include an otherwise healthy 18 year old dependent on insulin. See http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/schrempp_wonderly_opn_ltr1.pdf
In late 2009, the Baxter opinion was issued in your Supreme Court ruling that doctors who assist a suicide in certain narrowly defined circumstances have a defense to prosecution if charged with homicide. Since then, I have been contacted by several Montanans describing the misuse or abuse of "comfort care" against their loved ones. Three of these persons have specifically endorsed HB 505, see for example, this letter by Carol Mungas, the widow of a prominent physician who was euthanized by nurses against his will. See http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2013/03/i-support-house-bill-505-which-clearly.html
Last month in the Senate Judiciary Committee, a doctor described his assisting three suicides in Montana. See http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013303260026
If he is not prosecuted, or if the prosecution fails, assisted suicides will thereby be encouraged and, given Washington's experience, there will be a push to expand the practice to less compelling cases, for example, persons with treatable diabetes. If, instead, HB 505 is enacted, there will be a clear statement going forward that assisted suicide is not legal in Montana.
This is why HB 505 is needed now.
Thank you for your consideration.
Margaret Dore
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.
Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation
www.margaretdore.com
www.choiceillusion.org
1001 4th Avenue, 44th Floor
Seattle, WA 98154
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Death by Dehydration and Starvation
Click here to view original letter.
My mother, Sharon Moe, was diagnosed with colon cancer in February of this year. After her surgery, I was told that she may be able to live for 6 months to 2 years. My mother was against assisted suicide and euthanasia and wanted to live as long as possible. She was placed back in the care of the nursing facility where hospice started to care for her. She was placed on a continual feed through a feeding tube because she was unable to take in anything orally due to her medical condition.
From the beginning, hospice wanted to stop the continual feed. My mother was adamant that she wanted to live and told the hospice nurse that she wanted to stay on the continual feed. My mother was able to converse and sit upright within a day or so after being taken back to the nursing facility. Her health was improving and she was doing really well after surgery despite the fact that she was underweight from not being able to eat.
The hospice nurse was still wanting to remove the continual feeding, even though my mother was doing well. My mother was able to tolerate the food and was not aspirating from it. The nurse placed a pain patch on my mother even though she wasn't in pain. They didnt ask her if she was in pain--they just administered the pain patch because she had a 'furrowed brow'. This pain patch caused my mother to hallucinate and be in a semi-comatose state. She was talkative and looking better before the patch was administered. After the patch had been in her system overnight, she started seeing things and was very scared.
My mother did not get the chance to live on longer as she had willed, but her death was hastened by dehydration and starvation after removing the continual feeding. My mother was not experiencing any pain and would tell someone if she had it....
Mike Moe, Great Falls Montana
My mother, Sharon Moe, was diagnosed with colon cancer in February of this year. After her surgery, I was told that she may be able to live for 6 months to 2 years. My mother was against assisted suicide and euthanasia and wanted to live as long as possible. She was placed back in the care of the nursing facility where hospice started to care for her. She was placed on a continual feed through a feeding tube because she was unable to take in anything orally due to her medical condition.
From the beginning, hospice wanted to stop the continual feed. My mother was adamant that she wanted to live and told the hospice nurse that she wanted to stay on the continual feed. My mother was able to converse and sit upright within a day or so after being taken back to the nursing facility. Her health was improving and she was doing really well after surgery despite the fact that she was underweight from not being able to eat.
The hospice nurse was still wanting to remove the continual feeding, even though my mother was doing well. My mother was able to tolerate the food and was not aspirating from it. The nurse placed a pain patch on my mother even though she wasn't in pain. They didnt ask her if she was in pain--they just administered the pain patch because she had a 'furrowed brow'. This pain patch caused my mother to hallucinate and be in a semi-comatose state. She was talkative and looking better before the patch was administered. After the patch had been in her system overnight, she started seeing things and was very scared.
My mother did not get the chance to live on longer as she had willed, but her death was hastened by dehydration and starvation after removing the continual feeding. My mother was not experiencing any pain and would tell someone if she had it....
Mike Moe, Great Falls Montana
Thursday, March 21, 2013
"This ad is appalling, even by the low standards of Compassion & Choices"
Dear Montana Senate Judiciary Members:
I am a probate attorney from Washington State where assisted suicide is, unfortunately, legal.
I recently saw an ad by “Compassion and Choices” which contained an over-the-top depiction of a doctor in handcuffs. This ad is appalling, even by the low standards of Compassion in Choices. (Compassion and Choices is a successor organization of the Hemlock Society, originally founded by Derek Humphry. In 2011, Humphry was keynote speaker and Compassion and Choices annual meeting here in Washington. He was also in the news as a promoter of mail-order suicide kits after a 29 year old man used one of the kits to commit suicide).*
HB 505 is needed to protect seniors and others from the ultimate in financial and physical abuse. I urge you to vote YES. Thank you.
Theresa Schrempp
Seattle, WA
* For supporting authority and more information, go here: http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2012/12/compassion-choices-is-successor.html
I am a probate attorney from Washington State where assisted suicide is, unfortunately, legal.
I recently saw an ad by “Compassion and Choices” which contained an over-the-top depiction of a doctor in handcuffs. This ad is appalling, even by the low standards of Compassion in Choices. (Compassion and Choices is a successor organization of the Hemlock Society, originally founded by Derek Humphry. In 2011, Humphry was keynote speaker and Compassion and Choices annual meeting here in Washington. He was also in the news as a promoter of mail-order suicide kits after a 29 year old man used one of the kits to commit suicide).*
HB 505 is needed to protect seniors and others from the ultimate in financial and physical abuse. I urge you to vote YES. Thank you.
Theresa Schrempp
Seattle, WA
* For supporting authority and more information, go here: http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2012/12/compassion-choices-is-successor.html
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Possible expansion of physician-assisted suicide laws in other states should concern Montana
I am doctor in Washington state where physician-assisted suicide is legal for “terminal patients” predicted to have less than six months to live. I disagree with the letter by Kristen Wood (letter, Feb. 28) that expansion is not a concern in this context.
In Washington state, our assisted suicide law has only been in effect for four years. We have, however, already had proposals to expand that law to direct euthanasia of non-terminal people. See e.g., Brian Faller, “Perhaps it’s time to expand Washington’s Death with Dignity Act,” Nov. 16, 2011. Last year, there was also this article in the Seattle Times, suggesting euthanasia for people who cannot afford their own care, which would be involuntary euthanasia: Jerry Large, “Planning for old age at a premium,” March 8, 2012 at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2017693023.html (“After Monday’s column, . . . a few (readers) suggested that if you couldn’t save enough money to see you through your old age, you shouldn’t expect society to bail you out. At least a couple mentioned euthanasia as a solution.“)
I am very concerned with where this is all going. I hope that Montana does not follow our lead to legalize assisted suicide.
Richard Wonderly,
Seattle, Washington
Friday, March 8, 2013
"Because of my mother's experiences, I no longer believe in "physician-assisted suicide.' Support House Bill 505."
Family member's 'accidental' death provides example for opposition to assisted suicide
http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_2051b845-5a8d-5cdc-be0e-0b7bfbb5e2bf.html?comment_form=true
This letter is being written for a right to live. We taxpayers paid a phenomenal amount of money when others decided it was time for my mother to die. She would not die! Three times she defied attempts on her life, costing her bed sores, hospice and her daughter being arrested while helping her (the latter arrest record was dismissed).
Mom succumbed in the hospital on Sept. 6, 2010. The coroner's report case No. 100906 lists congestive heart failure with oxygen deprivation and fentanyl therapy. The manner of death: accident.
Fentanyl is reported "to be 80 to 200 times as potent as morphine." A fentanyl patch of 100 mcg/hour has a range within 24 hours of 1.9-3.8ng/mL. Mom's death result was 2.7 ng/mL on or about 48 hours.
Complaint No. 2012-069-MED was filed with the Montana Department of Labor and Industry Board of Medical Examiners. The screening panel voted to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, which means the board may not consider the complaint in the future.
Because of my mother's experiences, I no longer believe in "physician-assisted suicide." Support House Bill 505.
Gail Bell,
Bozeman
http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_2051b845-5a8d-5cdc-be0e-0b7bfbb5e2bf.html?comment_form=true
This letter is being written for a right to live. We taxpayers paid a phenomenal amount of money when others decided it was time for my mother to die. She would not die! Three times she defied attempts on her life, costing her bed sores, hospice and her daughter being arrested while helping her (the latter arrest record was dismissed).
Mom succumbed in the hospital on Sept. 6, 2010. The coroner's report case No. 100906 lists congestive heart failure with oxygen deprivation and fentanyl therapy. The manner of death: accident.
Fentanyl is reported "to be 80 to 200 times as potent as morphine." A fentanyl patch of 100 mcg/hour has a range within 24 hours of 1.9-3.8ng/mL. Mom's death result was 2.7 ng/mL on or about 48 hours.
Complaint No. 2012-069-MED was filed with the Montana Department of Labor and Industry Board of Medical Examiners. The screening panel voted to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, which means the board may not consider the complaint in the future.
Because of my mother's experiences, I no longer believe in "physician-assisted suicide." Support House Bill 505.
Gail Bell,
Bozeman
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Doctor Effectively Euthanized Against his Will
![]() |
James Mungas MD |
My husband, Dr. James E. Mungas, was a respected physician and surgeon here in Great Falls. He developed amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and I took care of him. His mind was clear and thought processes unimpaired. He was against assisted suicide and euthanasia.
I needed to travel out of town for a day and a half. We agreed he would stay at a local care facility in my absence. Once there, nurses began administering morphine. After the first dose, my husband knew that he had been overdosed and typed out a message to call respiratory therapy. None came that day. Over the next few days, he struggled to breathe and desperately struggled to remain conscious to communicate, but the nurses kept pushing the morphine button and advised our children to do the same. My children and I did not understand the extent morphine would repress the respiratory system until later. This was neither palliative care nor managing pain; this was hastening death. He was effectively euthanized against his will. He did not get his choice. It is traumatic, still, to realize his last communications were attempts to get help....
— Carol Mungas,
Great Falls, Montana
More Big News From Montana! We Passed the House!
Last week, HB 505 passed the House!
So, now the former Hemlock Society is gearing up the misinformation campaign.
Will keep you posted!
Meanwhile, enjoy the victory!
Thank you to everyone who made this possible.
Thanks!
Margaret Dore
So, now the former Hemlock Society is gearing up the misinformation campaign.
Will keep you posted!
Meanwhile, enjoy the victory!
Thank you to everyone who made this possible.
Thanks!
Margaret Dore
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
More Big News From Montana. WE WON!
HB 505, which clarifies the offense of aiding or soliciting suicide, just passed second reading in the Montana House of Representatives!
The bill’s other purpose is to prevent the legalization of physician-assisted suicide in Montana.
The vote was 54 to 45!
The bill’s other purpose is to prevent the legalization of physician-assisted suicide in Montana.
The vote was 54 to 45!
Thanks you everyone for your help!
Way to go!!!!!
Margaret Dore, President
Choice is an Illusion,
a Nonprofit Corporation
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Losing the Will to Live: The ghastly murders in Newtown, Conn., reflect the prevalence of suicide here and across the globe.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/28/suicide-mass-murder/1872833/
Rebecca D. Costa6:41p.m. EST January 29, 2013
That's right. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about Khalid al-Mihdhar and 9/11, or James Eagan Holmes opening fire on movie-goers in Colorado, or more recently, Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old responsible for the school massacre in Newtown, Conn. We now know that in each of these cases, the assailants felt they no longer had a reason to live. And it is this unnatural state that enabled them to commit unimaginable acts. Once a person makes a decision to die, the most abhorrent atrocities become permissible. There are no longer any consequences to fear: no arrest, no jail, no trial, no families of the victims to face, no remorse, no nothing. Dead is dead.
Historical anomaly
Consider this: John Wilkes Booth didn't shoot up the Ford Theater. After aiming his gun at President Lincoln, he ran. He hid. He tried to get away. The same goes for Lee Harvey Oswald. He didn't open fire on the people who lined the streets to catch a glimpse of the president's motorcade. Even disturbed killers such as Ted Bundy, Charles Manson and John Wayne Gacy went to great lengths to keep their crimes hidden. Why? Because the drive to survive — to thrive, to propagate — is the strongest instinct among all living organisms. Self-preservation is a fundamental urge in nature. But in recent times, this instinct has gone awry.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, antidepressants are now the most prescribed drugs in the USA, climbing almost 400% from 1988-94 through 2005-08. Not surprisingly, the biggest jump is among preschoolers and adolescents. And if that isn't a clear warning of what lies ahead, then perhaps the fact that an estimated 1 million people in the U. S. report attempting to commit suicide each year — and that one succeeds every 14 minutes — will trigger an alarm. The number of people who no longer wish to live has been steadily rising in the past two decades, even before the recession. That suicide rate among military veterans we are so worried about? It is rising to civilian levels.
And it's not just the U.S. Globally, suicides have risen 60% in the past 45 years. We have a widespread affliction on our hands that is affecting the entire human race. An affliction we understand very little about. An affliction we continue to sweep under the rug and blame on guns, the economy and every other thing. An affliction that has become a preamble for mass murder.
Small actions don't help
I wouldn't go so far as to say that separating motive from means won't be helpful. We can and should make it difficult for unstable citizens to get a gun, rent a plane, build a bomb or have access to deadly poisons. But in terms of the bigger picture, these solutions look disturbingly similar to raising the debt ceiling, taxing the wealthy and claiming we've addressed our fiscal problems. Or drilling for more oil and behaving as if we'll never run out. We know these quick fixes are designed to ameliorate our immediate pain, but they don't go to the heart of the matter.
Today, fast-firing assault weapons grab international attention, but that is not what makes people like Adam Lanza so dangerous or what gives us reason to fear more such attacks; it's the fact that Lanza had no will to live. That's not a problem that can be solved by gun control or arming school guards.
It is a problem about people. The reach of the problem is far deeper. The CDC reports a million Americans try to kill themselves every year, but twice as many make plans to do it. While suicide claims a victim four times an hour, one of our friends, family members or neighbors thinks about it every two minutes.
If we have any hope of curbing tragedies such as Columbine and Sandy Hook, we must not allow rhetoric or short-term mitigation overshadow the opportunity to address the real culprit behind mass violence.
Thriving, happy, connected human beings don't use guns to harm others, no matter how plentiful. They don't fashion fertilizer or airplanes into bombs. And they don't need the government to regulate these things. Nature has designed us so that the will to live acts as a deterrent against anything that threatens our continuation — including opening fire in a public place.
Fix this, and it won't be long before gun control is superseded by self-control. And at the end of the day, isn't this a far more lasting alternative than surrendering hard-won liberties?
Rebecca D. Costa, author of The Watchman's Rattle: A Radical New Theory of Collapse, is aformer CEO and founder of Silicon Valley start-up Dazai Advertising.
Rebecca D. Costa6:41p.m. EST January 29, 2013
Before we turn up the volume on the Second Amendment. Before we trot out data proving that more guns lead to more violence — or don't. Before we re-live every senseless mass murder and make children afraid to step into a movie theater, school or mall. Before all of this and worse — experts would be wise to examine a phenomena that has been the impetus behind so many recent attacks on innocent civilians: Long before the perpetrators reached for a weapon, they lost their desire to live.
Historical anomaly
Consider this: John Wilkes Booth didn't shoot up the Ford Theater. After aiming his gun at President Lincoln, he ran. He hid. He tried to get away. The same goes for Lee Harvey Oswald. He didn't open fire on the people who lined the streets to catch a glimpse of the president's motorcade. Even disturbed killers such as Ted Bundy, Charles Manson and John Wayne Gacy went to great lengths to keep their crimes hidden. Why? Because the drive to survive — to thrive, to propagate — is the strongest instinct among all living organisms. Self-preservation is a fundamental urge in nature. But in recent times, this instinct has gone awry.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, antidepressants are now the most prescribed drugs in the USA, climbing almost 400% from 1988-94 through 2005-08. Not surprisingly, the biggest jump is among preschoolers and adolescents. And if that isn't a clear warning of what lies ahead, then perhaps the fact that an estimated 1 million people in the U. S. report attempting to commit suicide each year — and that one succeeds every 14 minutes — will trigger an alarm. The number of people who no longer wish to live has been steadily rising in the past two decades, even before the recession. That suicide rate among military veterans we are so worried about? It is rising to civilian levels.
And it's not just the U.S. Globally, suicides have risen 60% in the past 45 years. We have a widespread affliction on our hands that is affecting the entire human race. An affliction we understand very little about. An affliction we continue to sweep under the rug and blame on guns, the economy and every other thing. An affliction that has become a preamble for mass murder.
Small actions don't help
I wouldn't go so far as to say that separating motive from means won't be helpful. We can and should make it difficult for unstable citizens to get a gun, rent a plane, build a bomb or have access to deadly poisons. But in terms of the bigger picture, these solutions look disturbingly similar to raising the debt ceiling, taxing the wealthy and claiming we've addressed our fiscal problems. Or drilling for more oil and behaving as if we'll never run out. We know these quick fixes are designed to ameliorate our immediate pain, but they don't go to the heart of the matter.
Today, fast-firing assault weapons grab international attention, but that is not what makes people like Adam Lanza so dangerous or what gives us reason to fear more such attacks; it's the fact that Lanza had no will to live. That's not a problem that can be solved by gun control or arming school guards.
It is a problem about people. The reach of the problem is far deeper. The CDC reports a million Americans try to kill themselves every year, but twice as many make plans to do it. While suicide claims a victim four times an hour, one of our friends, family members or neighbors thinks about it every two minutes.
If we have any hope of curbing tragedies such as Columbine and Sandy Hook, we must not allow rhetoric or short-term mitigation overshadow the opportunity to address the real culprit behind mass violence.
Thriving, happy, connected human beings don't use guns to harm others, no matter how plentiful. They don't fashion fertilizer or airplanes into bombs. And they don't need the government to regulate these things. Nature has designed us so that the will to live acts as a deterrent against anything that threatens our continuation — including opening fire in a public place.
Fix this, and it won't be long before gun control is superseded by self-control. And at the end of the day, isn't this a far more lasting alternative than surrendering hard-won liberties?
Rebecca D. Costa, author of The Watchman's Rattle: A Radical New Theory of Collapse, is aformer CEO and founder of Silicon Valley start-up Dazai Advertising.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Oregon's New Statistics
By Margaret Dore, Esq.
Oregon's assisted suicide statistics are out for 2012.[1]
This annual report is similar to prior years. The preamble implies that the deaths were voluntary (self-administered), but the information reported does not address that subject.[2]
Oregon's assisted suicide law allows the lethal dose to be administered without oversight.[3] This creates the opportunity for an heir, or someone else who will benefit from the patient's death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent, for example, when the patient is asleep. Who would know?
The new Oregon report provides the following demographics:
"Of the 77 DWDA deaths during 2012, most (67.5%) were aged 65 years or older; the median age was 69 years. As in previous years, most were white (97.4%), [and] well-educated (42.9% had at least a baccalaureate degree) . . . ."[4] Most (51.4%) had private health insurance.[5]
Typically persons with these attributes are seniors with money, which would be the middle class and above, a group disproportionately victims of financial abuse and exploitation.[6]
As set forth above, Oregon's law is written so as to allow the lethal dose to be administered to patients without their consent and without anyone knowing how they died. The law thus provides the opportunity for the perfect crime. Per the new report, the persons dying (or killed) under that law are disproportionately seniors with money, a group disproportionately victimized by financial abuse and exploitation.
Oregon's new report is consistent with elder abuse.
Footnotes:
[1] The new report can be viewed here: http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year15.pdf and http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/year-15-2012.pdf
[2] Id.
[3] Oregon's law can be viewed here: http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Pages/ors.aspx
[4] Report cited at note 1.
[5] Id.
[6] See "Broken Trust: Elders, Family, and Finances," a Study on Elder Financial Abuse Prevention, by the MetLife Mature Market Institute, the National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, and the Center for Gerontology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, March 2009.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Not Dead Yet: More on Double Euthanasia in Belgium
January 15, 2013 | posted by Stephen Drake
The 24+ hours since I posted on the double euthanasia of two deaf men in Belgium has resulted in some developments, varied reactions, and some reflection on my own part. My apologies if this post seems a little scattered – a little like mental multi-colored pasta thrown against the wall - but sometimes that’s how my mind works.
First, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) issued a statement from Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the NFB:
At the same time, I’m sure that others have noticed that there are suicides getting a lot of coverage this week. The Pentagon reports that deaths by suicide reached a record number in 2012, with more military deaths occurring due to suicide than from combat. The suicide of programmer/activist/open source advocate Aaron Swartz – apparently overwhelmed by the double effects of depression and what is being called “overreaching” prosecution over his download of millions of journal articles. He was faced with decades in prison and enormous fines.
Read through the comments on any of the countless articles covering these suicide stories and you’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone reacting like this:
I think that we don’t see those comments in the cases of Aaron Swartz and the military because those people are valued. I know that euthanasia proponents say that their movement is all about respecting individual choice, but why are the “choices” of Marc and Eddy Verbessem “respected” while the suicides of military personnel and the suicide of Aaron Swartz are treated as preventable tragedies? The answer, of course, is that euthanasia isn’t about “respect,” but agreeing that another person’s continued existence is pointless.
The animal comparisons always get me. I’ve written before (with Dick Sobsey) about the myths surrounding the “kindness” of pet euthanasia.
What struck me this time was an even deeper disconnect. Anyone who spends a lot of time on the internet knows that cats are probably the most popular thing in existence. Some of the most popular pictures/videos of cats involve disabled cats – and dogs. Right now, the most popular cat on the internet seems to be Oskar the Blind Cat:
If you look around, you’ll find stories of a deaf and blind dog rescued from euthanasia and a pet now for seven years and there’s even a story out there about a deaf/blind dog with three legs that rescued his family from a fire.
Oskar has lots of fans. Stories like the ones about the dogs seem to make people just tear up and feel generally inspired.
But two deaf men losing their vision getting “put down”? That evokes shrugs and even applause.
I don’t get it. And I think I’m grateful I don’t.
First, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) issued a statement from Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the NFB:
“This disturbing news from Belgium is a stark example of the common, and in this case tragic, misunderstanding of disability and its consequences. Adjustment to any disability is difficult, and deaf-blind people face their own particular challenges, but from at least the time of Helen Keller it has been known that these challenges can be met, and the technology and services available today have vastly improved prospects for the deaf-blind and others with disabilities. That these men wanted to die is tragic; that the state sanctioned and aided their suicide is frightening.”You can view the entire release and learn more about the NFB here.
At the same time, I’m sure that others have noticed that there are suicides getting a lot of coverage this week. The Pentagon reports that deaths by suicide reached a record number in 2012, with more military deaths occurring due to suicide than from combat. The suicide of programmer/activist/open source advocate Aaron Swartz – apparently overwhelmed by the double effects of depression and what is being called “overreaching” prosecution over his download of millions of journal articles. He was faced with decades in prison and enormous fines.
Read through the comments on any of the countless articles covering these suicide stories and you’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone reacting like this:
- “It’s their body, their choice.”
- “When people decide they need to end it, they should be able to get help to do so.”
- “It’s too bad they had to use violent means – animals can get euthanized; we treat animals better than humans.”
I think that we don’t see those comments in the cases of Aaron Swartz and the military because those people are valued. I know that euthanasia proponents say that their movement is all about respecting individual choice, but why are the “choices” of Marc and Eddy Verbessem “respected” while the suicides of military personnel and the suicide of Aaron Swartz are treated as preventable tragedies? The answer, of course, is that euthanasia isn’t about “respect,” but agreeing that another person’s continued existence is pointless.
The animal comparisons always get me. I’ve written before (with Dick Sobsey) about the myths surrounding the “kindness” of pet euthanasia.
What struck me this time was an even deeper disconnect. Anyone who spends a lot of time on the internet knows that cats are probably the most popular thing in existence. Some of the most popular pictures/videos of cats involve disabled cats – and dogs. Right now, the most popular cat on the internet seems to be Oskar the Blind Cat:
If you look around, you’ll find stories of a deaf and blind dog rescued from euthanasia and a pet now for seven years and there’s even a story out there about a deaf/blind dog with three legs that rescued his family from a fire.
Oskar has lots of fans. Stories like the ones about the dogs seem to make people just tear up and feel generally inspired.
But two deaf men losing their vision getting “put down”? That evokes shrugs and even applause.
I don’t get it. And I think I’m grateful I don’t.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Chicago lottery winner's death ruled a homicide
From Kate Kelly:
It seems ageism is getting younger. The victim in this case was 46 years old. Note that, except for a concerned relative's persistence, this murder would have gone undetected. Apparently it is not considered "suspicious" when you die suddenly at 46 - even when you have "suddenly" become wealthy...
http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-lottery-winners-death-ruled-homicide-181627271.html
By Jason Keyser, Associated Press
Khan died a day later.
It seems ageism is getting younger. The victim in this case was 46 years old. Note that, except for a concerned relative's persistence, this murder would have gone undetected. Apparently it is not considered "suspicious" when you die suddenly at 46 - even when you have "suddenly" become wealthy...
http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-lottery-winners-death-ruled-homicide-181627271.html
By Jason Keyser, Associated Press
CHICAGO (AP) — With no signs of trauma and nothing to raise suspicions, the sudden death of a Chicago man a day after he collected a large pile of lottery winnings was initially ruled a result of natural causes.
Urooj Khan with lottery ticket |
Nearly six months later, authorities have a mystery on their hands after medical examiners, responding to a relative's pleas, did an expanded screening and determined that Urooj Khan, 46, died shortly after ingesting a lethal dose of cyanide. The finding has triggered a homicide investigation, the Chicago Police Department said.
"It's pretty unusual," said Cook County Medical Examiner Stephen Cina, commenting on the rarity of cyanide poisonings. "I've had one, maybe two cases out of 4,500 autopsies I've done."
In June, Khan, who owned a number of dry cleaners, stopped in at a 7-Eleven near his home in the West Rogers Park neighborhood on the city's North Side and bought a ticket for an instant lottery game.
He scratched off the ticket, then jumped up and down and repeatedly shouted " I hit a million," Khan recalled days later during a ceremony in which Illinois Lottery officials presented him with an oversized check. He said he was so overjoyed he ran back into the store and tipped the clerk $100. "Winning the lottery means everything to me," he said at the June 26 ceremony, also attended by his wife, Shabana Ansari; their daughter, Jasmeen Khan; and several friends. He said he would put some of his winnings into his businesses and donate some to a children's hospital.
Khan opted to take his winnings in a lump sum of just over $600,000. After taxes, the check, issued July 19 from the state Comptroller's Office, was about $425,000, said lottery spokesman Mike Lang.
Khan died a day later.
No signs of trauma were found during an external exam and no autopsy was done because, at the time, the Cook County Medical Examiner's Office didn't automatically perform them on those 45 and older unless the death was suspicious, Cina said. The cut-off has since been raised to age 50.
A basic toxicology screening for opiates, cocaine and carbon monoxide came back negative, and the death was ruled a result of the narrowing and hardening of coronary arteries.
But a relative came forward and asked authorities to look into the case further, Cina said. He refused to identify the relative.
"She (the morgue worker) then reopened the case and did more expansive toxicology, including all the major drugs of use, all the common prescription drugs and also included I believe strychnine and cyanide in there just in case something came up," Cina said. "And in fact cyanide came up in this case."
Chicago Police Department spokeswoman Melissa Stratton confirmed the department was now investigating the death and said detectives were working closely with the Medical Examiner's Office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)