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

"Is there a way to allow a person to end his life without making someone else a criminal?"

By Margaret Dore, Esq.

A legislator considering an assisted suicide law asked me this question: "Is there a way to allow a person to end his life without making someone else a criminal?"

This was my (slightly edited) response:

People take their lives all the time.  One of my cousins shot himself and another threw himself in front of a train.  There was no criminality involved.  Also, if people are in pain, palliative care laws allow medical personnel to give patients copious amounts of drugs, including up to sedation, which can hasten the patient's death. This is the principal of double effect.  This is legal.  For more information, read the Affidavit of Kenneth Stevens, MD, page 3, paragraph 13.

There is also palliative care abuse in which no one seems to be held accountable, except for maybe one case in California where doctors relied on a wealthy patient's daughters, who said that their father was really bad off and didn't want treatment, which was not the case.  At least, that's what's claimed by the man's son. See William Dotinga, "Grim Complaint Against Kaiser Hospital," Court House News Service, February 6, 2012.

I've had like 15-20 contacts in the past year by people upset about their family member being suddenly off'd by medical personnel and/or having DNR's put on family members/friends without the patient's consent.  My caregiver friends also talk about guarding their patients in the hospital.  Here are some letters from Montana.  http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2013/04/dont-give-doctors-more-power-to-abuse.html

Here's a letter from Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. The letter talks about doctors being quick with the morphine and also regarding the conduct of an adult son shortly after our assisted suicide law was passed ("an adult child of one of our clients asked about getting the pills [to kill the father].  It wasn't the father saying that he wanted to die"). http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2012/07/dear-montana-board-of-medical-examiners.html  Here's a letter from a wife about how she was afraid to leave her husband alone after a doctor pitched assisted suicide to her husband. http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2013/01/i-was-afraid-to-leave-my-husband-alone.html

There is also the issue that people who say they want to die don't mean it, as with any suicide.  See http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/what-people-mean-when-they-say-they.html

I've had two clients whose fathers signed up for the Oregon/Washington assisted suicide acts.  With the first case, one side of the family wanted the father to use the act and the other side didn't.  He spent the last months of his life torn over whether of not he should kill himself.  His daughter was also traumatized.  He died a natural death.  There is a Swiss study that you might be interested in, that 1 out of 5 family members were traumatized by witnessing the legal assisted suicide of a family member.  See http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/family-members-traumatized-eur-psych-2012.pdf

In my other case, the father had two suicide parties and it's not clear that it was voluntary.  My client, his son, was told that his dad had said "You're not killing me, I'm going to bed").  Regarding the next day, my client was told that his dad was already high on alcohol when he drank the lethal dose.  But then the person telling him this changed his story.  In Montana, Senator Jeff Essman, made a relevant observation regarding this point:

"[All] the protections [in Oregon's law] 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."

Senate Judiciary Hearing on SB 167 on February 10, 2011

I, however, doubt that a person in Oregon could be prosecuted.  If you read the act carefully, there is no requirement of patient consent to administration of the lethal dose, and to the extent that's ambiguous, there's the rule of lenity.  In Washington State, prosecutors are required to report assisted suicide deaths as "Natural" - no matter what - at least, that's what the regulation says: http://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Documents/5300/DWDAMedCoroner.pdf   How can you prosecute someone for homicide if the death is required to be reported as "Natural?"

Here in Washington, we have already had some informal proposals to expand the scope of our assisted suicide act.  One in particular disturbed me.  A Seattle Times column suggested euthanasia as a solution for people unable to support themselves, which would be involuntary euthanasia.  See Jerry Large, "Planning for old age at a premium," March 8, 2012, which states:

"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)

So, if you worked hard and paid taxes all your life and then your company pension plan goes belly up, this is how you want society to pay you back?

As a Democrat, I see us as looking out for the little guy, not passing laws to protect perpetrators, healthcare systems, etc. from legitimate claims.  I hope that you will vote against any effort to legalize assisted suicide/euthanasia.

Thank you for writing me back.

Margaret Dore