Vermont: Vote "NO" on New Senate Version of S.77, Passed May 8, 2013

This memo to the Vermont House of Representatives details some of the major flaws of the amended version of S.77 passed by the Senate on May 8, 2013.  To view the memo's index and text,  click here  To see the attachments, click here .  Below is the memo's text:


I. OVERVIEW

I am an attorney in Washington State where physician-assisted suicide is legal.[1]  Our law is similar to S.77, which seeks to legalize physician-assisted suicide.[2]  Moreover, it’s well known that financial reasons are “an all too common motivation for killing someone.”[3]

S.77 allows an heir, or another person who will benefit financially from a patient’s death, to help the patient sign up for the lethal dose.  S.77 also allows an heir, or someone else who will benefit financially from the death, to pick up the lethal dose at the pharmacy.  Once the lethal dose is in the house, there is no oversight.

S.77 is sold as promoting patient choice and control.  The bill is instead a recipe for elder abuse.  Don’t make Washington’s mistake.


II. FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND

A. Physician-assisted Suicide

The American Medical Association (AMA) defines physician-assisted suicide as occurring “when a physician facilitates a patient’s death by providing the necessary means and/or information to enable the patient to perform the life-ending act.”[4]  An example would be a doctor’s prescription of a lethal dose to facilitate a patient’s suicide.[5]  The AMA rejects this practice, stating:  "Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks."[6]


B. Most States Reject Assisted Suicide

Oregon and Washington are the only states where physician-assisted suicide is legal.  Oregon’s law was enacted by a ballot initiative in 1997.[7]  Washington's law was enacted by another initiative in 2008 and went into effect in 2009.[8]  No such law has made it through the scrutiny of a legislature despite more than 100 attempts.[9]  In a third state, Montana, there is a court decision that gives doctors who assist a suicide a defense to prosecution for homicide.  The meaning of this decision is subject to ongoing litigation.[10]

In the last two years, three states have strengthened their laws against assisted suicide.[11]  These states are: Idaho; Georgia; and Louisiana.[12]


III. THE BILL  

A. Patients are Not Necessarily Dying; They May Have Years to Live

S.77 applies to patients with a “terminal condition,” defined as having a medical prediction of less than six months to live.[13]  Such patients are not necessarily dying and may have years to live.  This is because doctor predictions of life expectancy can be wrong and because the requirement of six months to live is based on the patient’s not being treated.[14]  Consider Oregon resident, Jeanette Hall, who was diagnosed with cancer in 2000 and wanted to do assisted suicide.[15]  Her doctor convinced her to be treated instead.[16]  In a 2012 affidavit, she states:

"This July, it was 12 years since my diagnosis.  If [my doctor] had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead."[17]

B. How S.77 Works

S.77 has an application process to obtain a lethal dose, which includes a written request with two required witnesses.[18]

Once the lethal dose is picked up at the pharmacy, there is no oversight.[19]  The death is not required to be witnessed.  No one, not even a doctor, is required to be present.[20]


IV. ARGUMENT

A. Patient “Control” is an Illusion

1. No witnesses at the death

As noted above, S.77 does not require witnesses at the death.  Without disinterested witnesses, the opportunity is created for the patient’s heir, or for another person who will benefit financially from the death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent.  Even if the patient struggled, who would know?

Without disinterested witnesses, the patient’s choice and control over his death is not guaranteed.

2. Someone else is allowed to talk for the patient

Under S.77, patients obtaining the lethal dose are required to be “capable.”[21]  This is, however, a relaxed standard in which someone else is allowed to talk for the patient.  S.77 states:

"'Capable' means that a patient has the ability to make and communicate health care decisions to a physician, including communication through persons familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating . . .”  (Emphasis added).[22]

The person talking for the patient is not required to be a trusted person designated by the patient, for example, an agent under an advanced directive.[23]  The person talking for the patient is allowed to be an heir.[24]  With this circumstance, the patient is not necessarily in control of his fate.

3. An heir is allowed to procure the patient’s request for the lethal dose

S.77 prohibits an heir from acting as a witness on the written request for the lethal dose.[25]  S.77 does not, however, prohibit an heir from procuring that request.[26]  An example of procuring would be: providing the written request to the patient; recruiting the witnesses; and supervising the signing.  S.77, which allows an heir to procure the request, does not promote patient choice and control.  It invites coercion.

4. An heir is allowed to pick up the lethal dose at the pharmacy

S.77 allows the lethal dose to be picked up at the pharmacy by “an expressly identified agent of the patient.”[27]  S.77 does not prohibit an heir, or another person who will benefit financially from the death, from being this agent.[28]


B. Legalization will Create New Paths of Elder Abuse

 In Vermont, there are an estimated 3,750 cases of violence and abuse against elders each year.[29]  Nationwide, elder financial abuse is a crime growing in intensity, with perpetrators often family members.[30]  There are also victims reported murdered for their funds.[31]

Elder abuse is often difficult to detect.  This is largely due to the unwillingness of victims to report. “Shame, dependence on the abuser, fear of retribution, and isolation from the community are significant obstacles that discourage elders from reporting these crimes.”[32]

In Vermont, preventing abuse of vulnerable adults, which includes the elderly, is official state policy.[33]  If assisted suicide is legalized via S.77, new paths of abuse will be created against the elderly, which is contrary to that policy.  Alex Schadenberg, chair for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, International, states:

"With assisted suicide laws in Washington and Oregon, perpetrators can . . . take a 'legal' route, by getting an elder to sign a lethal dose request.  Once the prescription is filled, there is no supervision over the administration. . . . [E]ven if a patient struggled, “who would know?”[34]


C. Any Study Claiming that Oregon’s Law is Safe, is Invalid

During Montana’s 2011 legislative session, the lack of oversight over administration in Oregon’s law prompted Senator Jeff Essmann to make the following observation: The Oregon studies are invalid.  Senator Essmann, who is now President of the Senate, stated:

"[All] the protections end after the prescription is written. [The proponents] admitted that the provisions in the Oregon law would permit one person to be alone in that room with the patient.  And in that situation, there is no guarantee that that medication is self administered.

So frankly, any of the studies that come out of the state of Oregon’s experience are invalid because no one who administers that drug . . . to that patient is going to be turning themselves in for the commission of a homicide."[35]

D. 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 struggling over the decision of whether or not to kill himself.  My client, who was fearful that the other side of the family would use the lethal dose to kill the parent, who was no longer competent, was also torn and 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 his second party.  The person who told this to my client subsequently recanted.  My client did not want to pursue the matter further.  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, he would have got the house.  This way, she got everything.

V. CONCLUSION

If S.77 is enacted, patients affected by its passage will not necessarily be dying and may have years to live.  S.77's assurance of patient choice and control is also untrue.  The bill is instead a recipe for elder abuse.  The most obvious problem is a complete lack of oversight over administration of the lethal dose.  No doctor, not even a lay witness is required.  Even if the patient struggled, who would know?

Don’t make Washington’s mistake.  Reject S.77.

Respectfully submitted May 10, 2013

__________________________________

Margaret Dore, Attorney at Law    

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 main reception line

206 389 1562 direct line  

Footnotes:
[1]  I am an elder law/appellate attorney in Washington state who has been licensed to practice law since 1986.  I am a former Law Clerk to the Washington State Supreme Court.  I am a former Chair of the Elder Law Committee of the American Bar Association Family Law Section.  I am also President of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide.  See www.margaretdore.com and www.choiceillusion.org
[2]  S.77, as passed by the Senate on May 8, 2013, can be viewed at this link: http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/s-77-senate-version-as-of-05-08-13.pdf
[3]  People v. Stuart, 67 Cal. Rptr. 3rd 129, 143 (2007).
[4]   AMA Code of Medical Ethics, Opinion 2.211, available at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion2211.page
[5]  Id.
[6]  Id.
[7]  Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide act was passed as Ballot Measure 16 in 1994 and went into effect after a referendum in 1997.
[8]  Washington’s act was passed as Initiative 1000 on November 4, 2008 and went into effect on March 5, 2009.  See http://www.doh.wa.gov/dwda/default.htm
[9]  See tabulation at http://epcdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/attempts_to_legalize_001.pdf
[10]  See Matt Gouras, Associated Press, “Fight over assisted suicide moves back to court,” Billings Gazette, May 8, 2013, available at http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/fight-over-assisted-suicide-moves-back-to-court/article_7985baad-87a0-592a-b6dd-187073a4c47f.html?print=true&cid=print
[11]  See Margaret Dore, “US Overview,” updated July 30, 2012, at http://www.choiceillusion.org/p/us-overview.html
[12]  Id.
[13]  S.77, § 5281(a)(10).
[14]  See 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?, Seattle Weekly, January 14, 2009, available at www.seattleweekly.com/2009-01-14/news/terminal-uncertainty.  See also Affidavit of Kenneth Stevens, MD, September 18, 2012, available at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/signed-ken-stevens-affidavit_001.pdf ; and Affidavit of John Norton (when he was eighteen years old, he was told that he would die of ALS and paralysis in three to five years; he is now 75 years old).  Available at http://www.massagainstassistedsuicide.org/2012/09/john-norton-cautionary-tale.html
[15].  Affidavit of Kenneth Stevens, MD, ¶¶ 3-7, at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/signed-ken-stevens-affidavit_001.pdf   Affidavit of Jeanette Hall Opposing Assisted Suicide, August 17, 2012, at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/jeanette-hall-affidavit.pdf
[16]  Id.
[17]  Affidavit of Jeanette Hall, ¶ 4, at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/jeanette-hall-affidavit.pdf
[18]  See § 5283(a)(4)
[19]  See S.77 in its entirety, at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/s-77-senate-version-as-of-05-08-13.pdf
[20]  Id.
[21]   § 5281(a)(2)
[22]   § 5281(a)(2) states: "'Capable' means that a patient has the ability to make and communicate health care decisions to a physician, including communication through  persons familiar with the patient's manner of communicating if those persons are available."
[23]  See S.77 in its entirety, at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/s-77-senate-version-as-of-05-08-13.pdf.
[24]  S.77 does not prohibit heirs, or other persons who benefit financially from the patient’s death, to talk for the patient during the lethal dose request process.  See S.77 in its entirety.
[25]  See § 5281(a)(6)(defining “interested persons,” including an heir) and § 5283(a)(4)(regarding “interested persons”).
[26]  See S.77 in its entirety.
[27]  § 5283(a)(13)(B)(ii)
[28]  See S.77 in its entirety.
[29]  Elder Abuse Public Education Campaign, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, at http://www.ccvs.state.vt.us/pub_ed/index.html  (last visited April 29, 2013).
[30]  See MetLife Mature Market Institute, Broken Trust: Elders, Family and Finances, A Study on Elder Abuse Prevention, March 2009, at http://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/mmi-study-broken-trust-elders-family-finances.pdf (last visited April 29, 2013); Miriam Hernandez, ‘Black Widows’ in court for homeless murders, March 18, 2008, ABC Local, http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&id=6027370 (last visited October 2, 2010) (elderly homeless men killed as part of an insurance scam); and People v. Rutterschmidt, 98 Cal.Rptr.3rd 390 (2009) (regarding this same case).  
[31]  Id.  See also People v. Stuart, 67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 129, 143 (where daughter killed her mother with a pillow, “financial considerations [are] an all too common motivation for killing someone . . .”).
[32]  Elder Abuse Public Education Campaign, supra at note 29.
[33]  See, e.g., Vermont Adult Protective Services Statute, “Reports of Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of Vulnerable Adults,” 33 V.S.A. § 6902(14)(D)(defining a “[v]ulnerable adult" as a person 18 years of age or older who “is impaired due to . . . infirmities of aging . . .”  
[34]  Alex Schadenberg, Letter to the Editor, Elder abuse a growing problem, The Advocate, the official publication of the Idaho State Bar, October 2010, page 14, available at http://www.margaretdore.com/info/October_Letters.pdf
[35]  See link to hearing transcript for SB 167, February 10, 2011,  http://www.margaretdore.com/pdf/senator_essmann_sb_167_001.pdf

Montana: Fight Over Assisted Suicide Moves Back to Court

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/fight-over-assisted-suicide-moves-back-to-court/article_7985baad-87a0-592a-b6dd-187073a4c47f.html?print=true&cid=print

Matt Gouras, AP

HELENA — The fight over physician-assisted suicide in Montana is moving back to the courtroom after the Legislature failed this session to clarify that the practice is specifically legal or illegal.

Montanans Against Assisted Suicide is trying to strike the state Board of Medical Examiners' policy that guides doctors in the matter.

A Helena judge has scheduled oral arguments for next month in the case. The lawsuit was filed in December.    Since then, the Montana Legislature failed in efforts to either clarify that the practice is specifically legal or illegal. It was the second straight session where lawmakers couldn't agree on which direction to take the state.

[To view the lawsuit's petition and attachments, click here , here and here]

Supporters of the procedure argue that Montanans should be allowed to decide themselves how to die when facing terminal illness. Opponents argue physician-assisted suicide is a recipe for elder abuse and the government has a responsibility to protect the vulnerable older population.

The procedure has been surrounded by various interpretations since the Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that nothing in state law prohibits physician-assisted suicide - but it did not rule on whether the practice is a constitutionally protected right. The decision said nothing in state law, or precedent, makes the procedure illegal.

A Board of Medical Examiners rule adopted last year says it would consider, on an individual basis, any complaints filed against a doctor for providing "aid-in-dying." Without formal laws guiding the procedure, there are no other state reporting or other requirements and it is unknown how common the practice is.

Montanans Against Assisted Suicide argues in its court case that it believes the Supreme Court never legalized the procedure with its 2009 decision, which it argues is much narrower than others are interpreting it. The group also argues that the board implemented its new rule without sufficient public notice.

The group argues that the board's position on the matter attempts to convince more doctors they will be protected if they assist a patient with suicide, which can be done with a prescription of drugs.

The lawsuit calls the rule "a significant toe in the door to the attempted backdoor legalization of assisted suicide."

The Montana Board of Medical Examiners has said that it wrote its position paper based on a request from a member. The board said its position does not pass judgment on the procedure one way or another.

The board said at the time it put the rule into place that the position paper was neither an administrative rule or a law, but merely informative guidance to its regulated members.

VT: Vote No on S.77 - Do Not be Fooled

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

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 

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

http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2013/03/physician-assisted-suicide-part-of.html

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

www.margaretdore.com

www.choiceillusion.org

1001 4th Avenue, 44th Floor

Seattle, WA 98154 USA

206 389 1754 

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.

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!!!!!

Margaret Dore

"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

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

"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

Possible expansion of physician-assisted suicide laws in other states should concern Montana

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/mailbag/possible-expansion-of-physician-assisted-suicide-laws-in-other-states/article_e29d5322-8b2c-11e2-aba7-001a4bcf887a.html

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

"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

Doctor Effectively Euthanized Against his Will

James Mungas MD

For published version, click here.

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

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!

Thanks you everyone for your help!

Way to go!!!!!

Margaret Dore, President

Choice is an Illusion,

a Nonprofit Corporation

www.choiceillusion.org 

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
 

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.

 

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.

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.

Not Dead Yet: More on Double Euthanasia in Belgium

http://www.notdeadyet.org/2013/01/more-on-double-euthanasia-in-belgium-national-federation-of-the-blind-reacts-and-other-suicides-in-the-news.html

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:

“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.”

The lack of statements like those struck me because they’re common sentiments expressed in article “comments,” and interactions on Facebook when people react to “double euthanasia” of Marc and Eddy Verbessem, the identical twins whose deaths are still making news.

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. 

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 

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.  

 

"Assisted suicide in Washington and Oregon is a recipe for elder abuse and cloaked in secrecy"

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/mailbag/oregon-washington-assisted-suicide-laws-include-no-protections-for-patients/article_074c4378-507b-11e2-8348-001a4bcf887a.html

By, Margaret Dore, Esq.  Supporting documentation follows letter, below.

Re: Susan Hancock, “Death with Dignity is about giving people choices" (Dec. 20, guest column):

I disagree with Susan Hancock’s description of how the Washington and Oregon assisted suicide laws work. I disagree that assisted suicide cannot be forced upon an unwilling person.

The Oregon and Washington assisted suicide acts have a formal application process. The acts allow an heir, who will benefit from the patient’s death, to actively participate in this process.

Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight. For example, there is no witness required at the death. Without disinterested witnesses, the opportunity is created for an heir, or for another person who will benefit from the patient’s death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent. One method would be by injection when the patient is sleeping. The drugs used in Oregon and Washington are water soluble and therefore injectable. If the patient woke up and struggled, who would know?

The Washington and Oregon acts require the state health departments to collect statistical information for the purpose of annual reports. According to these reports, users of assisted-suicide are overwhelmingly white and generally well-educated. Many have private insurance. Most are age 65 and older. Typically persons with these attributes are seniors with money, which would be the middle class and above, a group disproportionately at risk of financial abuse and exploitation.

The forms used to collect the statistical information do not ask about abuse. Moreover, not even law enforcement is allowed to access information about a particular case. Alicia Parkman a mortality research analyst at the Center for Health Statistics, Oregon Health Authority, wrote me: “We have been contacted by law enforcement and legal representatives in the past, but have not provided identifying information of any type.“

Assisted suicide in Washington and Oregon is a recipe for elder abuse and cloaked in secrecy. Don’t make our mistake.

Supporting documentation below.

Margaret Dore,

Seattle, Wash.

Mass: Inclusion Key in anti suicide drive

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/14/inclusion-key-in-anti-suicide-drive/#disqus_thread

By Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times, November 14, 2012

The anti-euthanasia movement found new life last week after voters in Massachusetts defied the conventional wisdom by rejecting a physician-assisted suicide initiative.

In a setback for the “aid in dying” movement, Question 2, known as the Death With Dignity initiative, lost by a margin of 51 percent to 49 percent after leading by 68-to-20 in a poll released in early September by the Boston Globe.

The turnaround came after the “No on 2” camp fractured the liberal coalition that approved similar measures in Oregon and Washington by building a diverse campaign of religious leaders, medical professionals and advocates for the disabled along with a few prominent Democrats and a member of the Kennedy clan.

"Compassion & Choices is a successor organization to the Hemlock Society"

http://helenair.com/news/opinion/readers_alley/assisted-suicide-law-could-lead-to-patient-mistreatment/article_32bac11c-4985-11e2-9338-0019bb2963f4.html?print=true&cid=print

12/19/12

Theresa Schrempp Seattle, Wash.

I am a lawyer in Washington State where assisted-suicide is legal. Robert Zimorino’s letter encourages readers to contact Compassion & Choices, a promoter of assisted-suicide (“aid in dying”).

Your readers should know that Compassion & Choices is a successor organization to the Hemlock Society, originally formed by Derek Humphry. In 2011, Humphry was the keynote speaker at Compassion & Choices’ annual meeting here in Washington State.  In 2011, he was also in the news as a promoter of mail-order suicide kits from a company now shut down by the FBI.This was after a 29 year old man used one of the kits to commit suicide.

In 2007, Compassion & Choices was a plaintiff in Montana’s assisted-suicide case. Therein, Compassion & Choices requested legalization of assisted-suicide for “terminally ill adult patients.” The definition of this phrase was broad enough to include an otherwise healthy 18 year old who is insulin dependent or a young adult with stable HIV/AIDS. Such persons can live for decades with appropriate medical treatment.

Once someone is labeled “terminal,” an easy justification can be made that their treatment should be denied in favor of someone more deserving. Those who believe that legalizing assisted-suicide will promote free choice may discover that it does anything but.

Supporting authority not included in the published letter, below:

Massachusetts: Support withered for assisted-suicide ballot question

http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_22157064/support-withered-assisted-suicide-ballot-question#ixzz2Egbgwy23

 

By Chris Camire, ccamire@lowellsun.comlowellsun.com

Updated:   12/09/2012 07:15:07 AM EST

In late September, polls showed a ballot initiative that would make physician-assisted suicide legal for terminally ill patients had support from 68 percent of Massachusetts voters. 

Over the next month, that support steadily eroded, and on Election Day the measure failed by a razor-thin 51-49 percent margin. 

How did a proposal that seemed sure to pass just five weeks before the election come up short? 

Joseph Baerlein, president of Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications, who handled public relations for the Committee Against Physician Assisted Suicide, said the measure's opponents had to convince voters who supported the idea of assisted suicide that the bill before them was flawed. 

"We focused our campaign strategy on looking at those weaknesses," said Baerlein. "For us to have a chance to win, we would have to have some amount of voters who felt it was their right take another look, so they would see that this wasn't the right way to do it."

The Death with Dignity Act, or Question 2, mirrored legislation passed in Oregon and Washington state.