No Word Yet

On June 6, 2023, attorney Margaret Dore filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of New Jersey, which seeks to overturn Petro v Platkin, 472 N.J. Super. 536, 277 A.3d 480 (2022). Dore's brief also supports the petitioners, including Dr. Joseph Glassman, MD, pictured here. 

Dore and the petitioners seek to overturn New Jersey's Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act, as unconstitutional. The Act legalized aid in dying, previously known as assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.

The Act allows these practices on both a voluntary and involuntary basis. The Supreme Court has not ruled as to whether it will take the case. The case was previously titled Glassman v. Grewal and also Petro v Grewal.

Dore Motion for Reconsideration in Glassman Case

To view Dore's brief as submitted, click here.

I.   RELIEF REQUESTED

Margaret Dore moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order dated April 1, 2020, which upheld the constitutionality of the Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act.[1]

II. THE ACT MUST BE SET ASIDE

The Court did not reach the Act’s violation of the object in title rule, which is dispositive to set the Act aside. The Court should reach this issue now to overturn the Act.

The Court’s order states that Dore asked the Court to declare the Act unconstitutional “on grounds not asserted by plaintiffs.”[2] The plaintiffs, did, however, ask the Court to rule on the issue, stating:

Ms. Dore’s brief should be considered by the Court since if the law is unconstitutional under the single object rule, it should be the Court’s responsibility to raise that issue sua sponte even if not raised by Ms. Dore or the Plaintiffs.[3]

The Legislature understood that it was enacting a strictly voluntary law limited to assisted suicide for dying patients.[4] The prior judge expressed a similar view. See, for example, the transcript from the hearing on August 14, 2019 (“This case is not about euthanasia”).[5]

This case, however, is about euthanasia. The Act is also not limited to dying people. Patient voluntariness is allowed, but not required. These are material facts not disclosed by the Act’s title and related findings. The Act is unconstitutional and must be set aside.

Margaret Dore: Euthanasia Act "Must Be Set Aside"

E. David Smith

On March 24, 2020, a hearing was held in Glassman v Grewal, a lawsuit, which seeks to invalidate New Jersey's euthanasia law, formally known as the "Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act."

The specific matter before the court was a motion to dismiss brought by the defendant, New Jersey Attorney General, Gurbir S. Grewal.

The plaintiff, Joseph Glassman, represented by E. David Smith, opposed the motion, as did Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, representing herself as amicus curiae.

Dore, who had filed both an amicus brief and a reply brief, argued that the Act must be set aside pursuant to the New Jersey Constitution. Her arguments largely tracked her reply brief, a portion of which is set forth below.

To Governor Phil Murphy: Veto Flawed Euthanasia Act (Bill A. 1504 Second Reprint)

Governor Murphy

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

To view pdf version, click here

1.  The Act 

The Act legalizes “aid in dying,” a traditional euphemism for active euthanasia.[1] The Act is based on similar laws in Oregon and Washington State.

2.  Pushback Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

In the last ten years, nine states have strengthened their laws against assisted suicide and/or euthanasia: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, South Dakota and Utah.[2]

Dore Letter and Bill Analysis Sent to the New Jersey Assembly

Dear Legislators:

I am attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.  I am writing to urge you to not make our mistake.  Please vote "No" on [the third reprint of A2270].

I have prepared an in-depth legal/policy analysis describing some of the problems with A2270, which can be viewed at the links set forth below. (or click here).

I make three points: 

1.  The bill, A2270, is titled "Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act."  "Aid in Dying" is a euphemism for assisted suicide and euthanasia.  The title is, regardless, deceptive because it implies that A2270 is limited to people who are dying, which is untrue. For example, A2270, if enacted, will apply to people with chronic conditions who otherwise have years, even decades, to live.  See memo, pp. 4-7.  Once enacted, there will be pressure to expand to a broader group of people.  See memo, pp. 7-8. 

2. The bill is a recipe for abuse with the most obvious reason being a complete lack of oversight when the lethal dose is administered.  See memo, pp. 9-16. 

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

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

Here is a link to the memo and attachments in one document: https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/nj-no-on-a2270-no-assisted-suicide-11-12-14.pdf

Or, if you like, a link to the memo alone:  https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/nj-no-on-a2270-memo-only-11-12-14.pdf and a link to the attachments:  
https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/nj-no-on-a2270-attachments-pnly-11-12-14.pdf

Please contact me with any questions or concerns.

Thank you.

Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA, President
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.
Choice is an Illusion, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation
www.choiceillusion.org
www.margaretdore.com
1001 4th Avenue, 44th Floor
Seattle, WA 98154 
206 389 1754 main reception
206 389 1562 direct line

Assisted suicide proposal ignores wrong diagnoses of terminal illness

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/08/letter_a_mistaken_prognosis_saps_the_will_to_live.html

Virtually every state’s chapter of the American Medical Association is opposed to assisted suicide, the reasons for which were absent from The Times’ recent editorial, “Death with dignity for the terminally ill includes crucial safeguards” (Aug. 10).

Studies show that diagnoses of terminal illness are very often wrong. A doctor may know someone has an illness, but determining how quickly it might kill the patient or even if it will kill him or her is difficult to determine. A wrong prognosis can easily lead patients into a spiral of hopelessness and to give up on treatment unnecessarily, thereby prematurely ending their lives.

In an age when almost every one of us knows someone who outlived their terminal prognosis, it’s important to remember that legalizing assisted suicide offers no second chances. No supposed “safeguard” can protect patients from deciding to die based on a faulty prognosis.


-- Eileen Fisher,
Bridgewater

People with Disabilities at Risk from Assisted Suicide

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/08/letter_people_with_disabilities_at_risk_from_assisted_suicide_measures.html

In its editorial "Death with dignity for the terminally ill proposal includes critical safeguards" (Aug. 10),The Times' assurances that the Death with Dignity for the Terminally Ill Act (A2270) has safeguards is not very reassuring to those of us with disabilities, who see it as dangerous to our lives.

Citing the Oregon and Washington laws as further assurance simply repeats propaganda from proponents. The Oregon law has no protection against coercion used against vulnerable people by those whose motives involve fraud or abuse. Oregon annually destroys data in the doctors’ reports about the deaths allowed by the law, leaving only statistics without investigation, so it is really overreaching to say the law has meaningful protections.

The current legislation in the Statehouse has “protections” that amount to an honor system, providing little comfort to people with severe disabilities. Indeed, whatever protections were seen by The Times are at best a half-hearted attempt by proponents to placate broad-based concerns over this legislation, the assurances of The Times’ editorial board notwithstanding. Unfortunately, these provisions may protect those who assist suicide from any liability for mistakes or abuses, but they do nothing to protect the patient or more vulnerable people with disabilities.


-- Norman A. Smith,
Robbinsville

The writer is president of the board of directors of the Hamilton-based Progressive Center for Independent Living and associate executive director of Project Freedom, based in Robbinsville.

Legal/Policy Analysis Against Bill A2270

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

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

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

There are three main points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick Facts About Assisted Suicide

By Margaret Dore, Esq.*

For a new print version, suitable for a handout, click here.

1.  Assisted Suicide

Assisted suicide means that someone provides the means and/or information for another person to commit suicide.  When a physician is involved, the practice is physician-assisted suicide.[1]

2. The Oregon and Washington Laws

In Oregon, physician-assisted suicide was legalized in 1997 via a ballot measure.[2]  In Washington State, a similar law was passed via another ballot measure in 2008 and went into effect in 2009.[3]  No such law has made it through the scrutiny of a legislature despite more than 100 attempts.[4]

3.  Patients are Not Necessarily Dying

The Oregon and Washington laws are restricted to patients predicted to have less than six months to live.[5]  Such persons are not necessarily dying.  Doctors can be wrong.[6]  Moreover, treatment can lead to recovery.  Consider Jeanette Hall, who was diagnosed with cancer and given six months to a year to live.[7]  She was adamant that she would "do" Oregon’s law, but her doctor, Ken Stevens, convinced her to be treated instead.[8] She is still alive 12 years later.[9]

4.  A Recipe for Elder Abuse

The Washington and Oregon laws are a recipe for elder abuse. The most obvious reason is due to a lack of oversight when the lethal dose is administered.[10] For example, there are no witnesses required at the death; the death is allowed occur in private.[11] With this situation, the opportunity is created for an heir, or some other person who will benefit from the patient’s death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent.  Even if he struggled, who would know?

5. Empowering the Healthcare System

In Oregon, patients desiring treatment under the Oregon Health Plan have been offered assisted suicide instead. 

The most well known cases involve Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup.[12] Each wanted treatment.[13] The Plan denied their requests and steered them to suicide by offering to pay for their suicides.[14] Neither Wagner nor Stroup saw this scenario as a celebration of their "choice." Wagner said: "I'm not ready to die."[15] Stroup said: "This is my life they’re playing with."[16]

Wagner and Stroup were steered to suicide. Moreover, it was the Oregon Health Plan, a government entity, doing the steering.[17]

6. Suicide Contagion

Oregon's suicide rate, which excludes suicides under its physician-assisted suicide law, has been "increasing significantly" since 2000.[18] 

Just three years prior, Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide. This increased suicide rate is consistent with a suicide contagion. In other words, legalizing one type of suicide encouraged other suicides.  Montana already has one of the highest suicide rates in the nation.[19]

7.  Proposals for Expansion

 

In Washington State, where assisted suicide was legalized four years ago, there is already a discussion to expand its law to direct euthanasia for non-terminal people.[20]  Indeed, last March, there was a column describing reader suggestions for euthanasia for people unable to afford care, which would be on an involuntary basis for people who want to live.[21]

* Margaret Dore is an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.  She is also President of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide.  For more information, see www.margaretdore.com and www.choiceillusion.org 

[1]  Compare: American Medical Association, 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
[2]  The Oregon and Washington laws are similar.  For a short article about Washington’s law, see Margaret K. Dore, "'Death with Dignity': What Do We Advise Our Clients?," King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, May 2009, available at https://www.kcba.org/newsevents/barbulletin/BView.aspx?Month=05&Year=2009&AID=article5.htm
[3]  Id.
[4]  http://epcdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/attempts_to_legalize_001.pdf
[5]  See ORS 127.800 s.1.01(12) and RCW 70.245.010(13).
[6]  See e.g., 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?," 01/14/09, available at http://www.seattleweekly.com/2009-01-14/news/terminal-uncertainty 
[7]  See Jeanette Hall, Letter to the editor, "She pushed for legal right to die, and - thankfully - was rebuffed, Boston Globe, October 4, 2011 ("I am so happy to be alive!), available at http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2011/10/04/she_pushed_for_legal_right_to_die_and___thankfully___was_rebuffed/ Kenneth Stevens MD, Letter to the Editor, "Oregon mistake costs lives," The Advocate, the official publication of the Idaho State Bar, Sept. 2010, (scroll down to last letter at www.margaretdore.com/info/Stevens.pdf ).
[8]  Id.
[9]  Per her telephone call today.
[10]  The Oregon and Washington Acts can be viewed in their entirety here and here.
[11]  Id.
[12]  See Susan Donaldson James, "Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon," ABC News, August 6, 2008, at http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1; "Letter noting assisted suicide raises questions," KATU TV, July 30, 2008, at http://www.katu.com/news/specialreports/26119539.html ; and Ken Stevens, MD, Letter to Editor, "Oregon mistake costs lives," The Advocate, the official publication of the Idaho State Bar, September 2011, to view, scroll down to bottom of second page here: http://www.margaretdore.com/info/September_Letters.pdf
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] KATU TV at note 12
[16] ABC News at note 12
[17]  See also Affidavit of Ken Stevens MD (Leblanc v. Canada), with attachments, available at http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/signed-stevens-aff-9-18-12.pdf 
[18]  See "Suicides in Oregon: Trends and Risk Factors," Oregon Department of Human Services, Public Health Division, September 2010, page 6, ("Deaths relating to the death with Dignity Act (physician-assisted suicides) are not classified as suicides by Oregon law and therefore excluded from this report"), available at http://epcdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/or_suicide_report_001.pdf
See also Oregon Health Authority, News Release, "Rising suicide rate in Oregon reaches higher than national average," September 9, 2010, ("suicide rates have been increasing significantly since 2000") available at http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/news/2010news/2010-0909a.pdf[19]  Cindy Uken, "State of Dispair: High-Country Crisis, Montana’s suicide rate leads the nation," Billings Gazetter, November 25, 2012, http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/montana-s-suicide-rate-leads-the-nation/article_b7b6f110-3e5c-5425-b7f6-792cc666008d.html?print=true&cid=print
[20]  See Brian Faller, "Perhaps it's time to expand Washington's Death with Dignity Act, The Olympian, November 16, 2011, available at http://www.theolympian.com/2011/11/16/1878667/perhaps-its-time-to-expand-washingtons.html
[21]  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, some readers were unsympathetic, a few 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.")

Oregon Doctor Finds Fault with State's Law

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2011/10/04/oregon_doctor_finds_fault_with_states_law/  

 – +

I am a doctor practicing medicine in Oregon and Washington, where physician-assisted suicide is legal. I disagree with Scot Lehigh that these suicides are not like other suicides in which “a healthy person [takes] his life for reasons of despair, depression, or hopelessness’’ (“Death with dignity in Mass.,’’ Op-ed, Sept. 23).

First, doctors can be wrong. So, what looks like a few months to live can be years. For a good article on this subject, see Nina Shapiro’s January 2009 "Terminal Uncertainty" in the Seattle Weekly.

Second, despair, depression, and hopelessness are a part of assisted suicide. A few years ago, a patient of mine who was undergoing cancer treatment with a specialist became depressed, and expressed a wish for assisted suicide.

In most jurisdictions, suicidal ideation is interpreted as a cry for help. In Oregon, the only help my patient got was a lethal prescription intended to kill him.  Don’t make our mistake. Keep assisted suicide out of Massachusetts.

Dr. Charles J. Bentz

Portland, Ore.

The writer is an associate professor of medicine in the division of general medicine and geriatrics at Oregon Health & Science University.

What People Mean When They Say They Want to Die

(originally published as a Statement for the BBC)

For a print version, click here.  

by William Toffler, MD

______________________________________________

There has been a profound shift in attitude in my state since the voters of Oregon narrowly embraced assisted suicide 11 years ago.  A shift that, I believe, has been detrimental to our patients, degraded the quality of medical care, and compromised the integrity of my profession.  

Since assisted suicide has become an option, I have had at least a dozen patients discuss this option with me in my practice.  Most of the patients who have broached this issue weren't even terminal.  

One of my first encounters with this kind of request came from a patient with a progressive form of multiple sclerosis.  He was in a wheelchair yet lived a very active life. In fact, he was a general contractor and quite productive.  While I was seeing him, I asked him about how it affected his life.  He acknowledged that multiple sclerosis was a major challenge and told me that if he got too much worse, he might want to “just end it.” “ It sounds like you are telling me this because you might ultimately want assistance with your own assisted suicide- if things got a worse,” I said.  He nodded affirmatively, and seemed relieved that I seemed to really understand. 

I told him that I could readily understand his fear and his frustration and even his belief that assisted suicide might be a good option for him. At the same time, I told him that should he become sicker or weaker, I would work to give him the best care and support available. I told him that no matter how debilitated he might become, that, at least to me, his life was, and would always be, inherently valuable. As such, I would not recommend, nor could I participate in his assisted-suicide.  He simply said, "Thank you."

The truth is that we are not islands.  How physicians respond to the patient’s request has a profound effect, not only on a patient's choices, but also on their view of themselves and their inherent worth.

When a patient says, "I want to die"; it may simply mean, "I feel useless." 

When a patient says, "I don't want to be a burden"; it may really be a question, "Am I a burden?" 

When a patient says, "I've lived a long life already"; they may really be saying, "I'm tired.  I'm afraid I can't keep going."

And, finally, when a patient says, "I might as well be dead"; they may really be saying, "No one cares about me." 

Many studies show that assisted suicide requests are almost always for psychological or social reasons.  In Oregon there has never been any documented case of assisted suicide used because there was actual untreatable pain.[6]  As such, assisted suicide has been totally unnecessary in Oregon.  

Sadly, the legislation passed in Oregon does not require that the patient have unbearable suffering, or any suffering for that matter.  The actual Oregon experience has been a far cry from the televised images and advertisements that seduced the public to embrace assisted suicide.  In statewide television ads in 1994, a woman named Patty Rosen claimed to have killed her daughter with an overdose of barbiturates because of intractable cancer pain.  This claim was later challenged and shown to be false.  Yet, even if it had been true, it would be an indication of inadequate medical care- not an indication for assisted suicide. 

Astonishingly, there is not even inquiry about the potential gain to family members of the so-called "suicide" of a "loved one." This could be in the form of an inheritance, a life insurance policy, or, perhaps even simple freedom from previous care responsibilities. 

Most problematic for me has been the change in attitude within the healthcare system itself. People with serious illnesses are sometimes fearful of the motives of doctors or consultants.  Last year, a patient with bladder cancer contacted me.  She was concerned that an oncologist might be one of the "death doctors."  She questioned his motives—particularly when she obtained a second opinion from another oncologist which was more sanguine about her prognosis and treatment options.  Whether one or the other consultant is correct or not, such fears were never an issue before assisted suicide was legalized.  

In Oregon, I regularly receive notices that many important services and drugs for my patients-even some pain medications-won't be paid for by the State health plan.  At the same time, assisted suicide is fully covered and sanctioned by the State of Oregon and by our collective tax dollars.

I urge UK leaders to reject the seductive siren of assisted suicide.  Oregon has tasted the bitter pill of barbiturate overdoses and many now know that our legislation is hopelessly flawed. I believe Great Britain, the birthplace of Dame Cicely Saunders, and the Hospice movement, and a model to the rest of the world, deserves better. 

Don't Follow Oregon's Lead: Say No to Assisted Suicide

http://www.margaretdore.com/info/Bentz_Letter.pdf

I am an internal medicine doctor, practicing in Oregon where assisted suicide is legal.  I write in support of Margaret Dore's article, "Aid in Dying: Not Legal in Idaho; Not About Choice."  I would also like to share a story about one of my patients.

I was caring for a 76 year-old man who came in with a sore on his arm. The sore was ultimately diagnosed as a malignant melanoma, and I referred him to two cancer specialists for evaluation and therapy. I had known this patient and his wife for over a decade. He was an avid hiker, a popular hobby here in Oregon. As he went through his therapy, he became less able to do this activity, becoming depressed, which was documented in his chart.

During this time, my patient expressed a wish for doctor-assisted suicide to one of the cancer specialists. Rather than taking the time and effort to address the question of depression, or ask me to talk with him as his primary care physician and as someone who knew him, the specialist called me and asked me to be the "second opinion" for his suicide. She told me that barbiturate overdoses "work very well" for patients like this, and that she had done this many times before.

I told her that assisted-suicide was not appropriate for this patient and that I did NOT concur. I was very concerned about my patient's mental state, and I told her that addressing his underlying issues would be better than simply giving him a lethal prescription. Unfortunately, my concerns were ignored, and approximately two weeks later my patient was dead from an overdose prescribed by this doctor. His death certificate, filled out by this doctor, listed the cause of death as melanoma.

The public record is not accurate. My patient did not die from his cancer, but at the hands of a once-trusted colleague. This experience has affected me, my practice, and my understanding of what it means to be a physician. What happened to this patient, who was weak and vulnerable, raises several important questions that I have had to answer, and that the citizens of Idaho should also consider:

        * If assisted suicide is made legal in Idaho, will you be able to trust your doctors, insurers and HMOs to give you and your family members the best care? I referred my patient to specialty care, to a doctor I trusted, and the outcome turned out to be fatal.
        
        * How will financial issues affect your choices? In Oregon, patients under the Oregon Health Plan have been denied coverage for treatment and offered coverage for suicide instead. See e.g. KATU TV story and video athttp://www.katu.com/home/video/26119539.html  (about Barbara Wagner). Do you want this to be your choice?

        * If your doctor and/or HMO favors assisted suicide, will they let you know about all possible options or will they simply encourage you to kill yourself?  The latter option will often involve often less actual work for the doctor and save the HMO money.

In most states, suicidal ideation is interpreted as a cry for help. In Oregon, the only help my patient received was a lethal prescription, intended to kill him.

Is this where you want to go? Please learn the real lesson from Oregon. Despite all of the so-called safeguards in our assisted suicide law, numerous instances of coercion, inappropriate selection, botched attempts, and active euthanasia have been documented in the public record.

Protect yourselves and your families. Don't let legalized assisted suicide come to Idaho.

Charles J. Bentz MD, FACP
Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine, Division of General Medicine and Geriatrics Oregon Health & Sciences University
Portland Oregon

"If my doctor had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead"

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2011/10/04/she_pushed_for_legal_right_to_die_and___thankfully___was_rebuffed/

I DISAGREE with Scot Lehigh’s Sept. 23 column, which characterizes assisted suicide as only involving people who are going to die in “a few months or weeks’’ (“Death with dignity in Mass.,’’ Op-ed). I am a retired person living in Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal. Our law was enacted through a ballot initiative that I voted for. In 2000, I was diagnosed with cancer and told that I had six months to a year to live.

I knew that our law had passed, but I didn’t know exactly how to go about making use of it. I tried to ask my doctor, but he didn’t really answer me. I didn’t want to suffer. I wanted to do what our law allowed, and I wanted my doctor to help me. Instead, he encouraged me not to give up, and ultimately I decided to fight the disease. I had both chemotherapy and radiation.

I am so happy to be alive! It is now 11 years later.

If my doctor had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead. I thank him and all my doctors for helping me to choose “life with dignity.’’

Assisted suicide should not be legal. I hope Massachusetts does not make this terrible mistake.

Jeanette Hall

King City, Ore.

"I was afraid to leave my husband alone"

Letter from Oregon resident, Kathryn Judson, Published in the Hawaii Free Press, February 15, 2011.  To view the original letter, click here and scroll down towards the bottom of the page.   

Dear Editor,

Hello from Oregon.

When my husband was seriously ill several years ago, I collapsed in a half-exhausted heap in a chair once I got him into the doctor's office, relieved that we were going to get badly needed help (or so I thought).

To my surprise and horror, during the exam I overheard the doctor giving my husband a sales pitch for assisted suicide. 'Think of what it will spare your wife, we need to think of her' he said, as a clincher.

Now, if the doctor had wanted to say 'I don't see any way I can help you, knowing what I know, and having the skills I have' that would have been one thing. If he'd wanted to opine that certain treatments weren't worth it as far as he could see, that would be one thing. But he was tempting my husband to commit suicide. And that is something different.

I was indignant that the doctor was not only trying to decide what was best for David, but also what was supposedly best for me (without even consulting me, no less).

We got a different doctor, and David lived another five years or so. But after that nightmare in the first doctor's office, and encounters with a 'death with dignity' inclined nurse, I was afraid to leave my husband alone again with doctors and nurses, for fear they'd morph from care providers to enemies, with no one around to stop them.

It's not a good thing, wondering who you can trust in a hospital or clinic. I hope you are spared this in Hawaii.

Sincerely,

Kathryn Judson, Oregon