Showing posts with label death with dignity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label death with dignity. Show all posts

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Question 2 will put the vulnerable at risk

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/letters_to_the_editor/x1272750569/Coiro-Question-2-will-put-vulnerable-at-risk#ixzz2BCKQGRss

Dear Editor:

The desire "not to be a burden," has been part of all five suicides I have experienced as a priest.  Pre-death interviews in Oregon and Washington show that those who make use of Physician Assisted Suicide there often state the desire "not to be a burden" as their primary motivation.  Not suffering, but rather the challenge of being dependent on the aid of others.

The greatest misconception about legalizing Assisted Suicide is that it is strictly about giving individuals the right to make choices for themselves - that it will not impact others.  The reality is that once suicide is introduced as a legal option in some circumstances, it becomes a more acceptable and likely option for society as a whole.  Consider Oregon.  Oregon passed doctor-assisted suicide in 1994.  Now, suicide is the leading cause of "injury death" there, and the second leading cause of death among 15 to 34 year olds.  The suicide rate in Oregon, which had been in decline before 1994, is now 35 percent higher than the national average.

As one who ministers to the dying and the depressed, I am deeply concerned that if passed, Question 2 will put many more vulnerable persons at risk.  Do you know a teen, or family member, or coworker who suffers from depression?  A yes vote for Question Two would tell those individuals that yes, sometimes the deliberate taking of one's own life is an appropriate choice.  On their behalf, please join in defeating Question 2.

 REV. MARK J. COIRO


Pastor, St. Mary's, Holliston
Read more: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/letters_to_the_editor/x1272750569/Coiro-Question-2-will-put-vulnerable-at-risk#ixzz2BCKQGRss

Doctor-assisted suicide won't bring "peace and comfort"

http://www.wickedlocal.com/brookline/news/x255964445/Letter-Doctor-assisted-suicide-won-t-bring-peace-and-comfort#ixzz2BCHxVAkS

"The incantatory phrase, 'in a humane and dignified manner,' is incessantly repeated throughout the pages of the proposal of Question 2. It scares me."

Dear Editor:

Suicide's tragedy is in its failure, on both the personal level of caring and the societal level of caring for people who are not going to get well. The training of doctors and nurses, geared toward the recovery of health, can engender frustration in the face of death, a defeat in the battle for a cure. Dying is fearsome, not death itself. In the abstract, one can be tempted toward ending one's life, especially where there is physical and/or mental suffering. On the practical level, suicide is never the answer, is never a comfort, always leaving distressing questions afterward. Killing attacks life and is an affront to the art and science of medicine.

A mother's vote against assisted suicide

http://www.patriotledger.com/letters/x346791105/DOTTY-McLAUGHLIN-Randolph-A-mothers-vote-against-assisted-suicide#ixzz2BCFhdnk2

I was disappointed in your editorial, “Vote yes on Question 2; allow death with dignity” (Nov. 2).

Question 2 makes it legal to obtain a lethal prescription if a person has a terminal illness that carries a prognosis of six or fewer months to live.   As a mother whose son outlived his six-month prognosis by six years, I oppose Question 2 for that reason alone.  The years we had with my son are a precious gift; I would not want to see another family deprived of days, months, or years with a loved one because of this law.  

Question 2 also has other deep and serious flaws.  To begin, a patient’s mental health does not have to be evaluated before making such a significant life-ending decision.  Today, if a patient confides in their doctor that they are having suicidal thoughts or intend to do harm to themselves, it is the doctor’s professional obligation to do everything they can to prevent such actions.  Taking a lethal dose of 100 Seconal pills should not be an exception to this rule.

Once the patient picks up this lethal prescription from his or her local pharmacy, there is absolutely no tracking method to ensure that the medication does not end up in the wrong hands.  In your editorial, you correctly state that such a thing is not required for any other sorts of medications. However, none of these medications have an expressed intent to kill anyone. The importance of a tracking method for this medication is distinctive and necessary. Moreover, as a resident of the South Shore, I am shocked at the Ledger’s loose attitude toward this serious issue under the banner of prescription monitoring, given the paper’s strong coverage of the region’s oxycontin epidemic in the past.

Your newspaper cited Oregon – where assisted suicide is legal – as a model case, since only about 600 people had actually taken their lives.  Since when did 596 lives become insignificant? How many of them could have outlived their prognosis, or had more time to spend with friends, their families and children? How many of them could have been suffering from a treatable form of depression or misdiagnosed in the first place? My son enjoyed five years and six extra months more than he was predicted to live. Time which may have been lost if physician assisted suicide had been legal. 

We should be focusing more on options such as hospice and palliative care for patients with terminal illnesses, rather than the finality of death, because let’s face it – how many doctors can say with absolute certitude that a patient has only six months left to live? The answer: zero. 

I stand with the Massachusetts Medical Society and its 23,000 physicians across the state in opposing Question 2, and I urge all voters to do the same on Nov. 6.

DOTTY MCLAUGHLIN
Randolph


Read more: DOTTY McLAUGHLIN, Randolph: A mother's vote against assisted suicide - West Bridgewater, MA - Wicked Local West Bridgewater http://www.patriotledger.com/letters/x346791105/DOTTY-McLAUGHLIN-Randolph-A-mothers-vote-against-assisted-suicide#ixzz2BCFhdnk2

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Mayor, Full Council Oppose Assisted Suicide Question


The following was submitted by City Councilor Diane LeBlanc.
Mayor Jeannette McCarthy and the City’s 15 Councilors will be voting No on Question 2 and they are urging Waltham residents and residents across the state to do the same.  While it is not common for elected officials to speak out on ballot questions, they are making an exception because of the life and death issue at stake, and what they unanimously agree, are gross flaws in the proposed law.

Killing with kindness: Why the Death With Dignity Act endangers people with disabilities

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/146648-killing-with-kindness-why-the-death-with-dignity-/#ixzz2AvS5wlXH

 
By S.J. Rosenbaum

I think my opinions about doctor-assisted suicide crystallized the night Mike — my wheelchair-using, ventilator-breathing boyfriend — choked on pineapple juice, passed out, and died.

He was dead for several minutes, on a steel table in the ER. The doctor shocked the pulse back into his heart and dropped him into an induced coma, but it still wasn't clear whether he would make it. As I stood by his bedside, shaking, one of the nurses touched me on the shoulder.

"Maybe it's better this way," she murmured.

I'll never forget that moment. We'd been watching a movie together a few hours before. We had plans to go clubbing. Maybe it's better this way?

I'm not a violent person, but I wanted to punch that lady in the face.

NY Times: Suicide by Choice? Not so Fast


NEXT week, voters in Massachusetts will decide whether to adopt an assisted-suicide law. As a good pro-choice liberal, I ought to support the effort. But as a lifelong disabled person, I cannot.

There are solid arguments in favor. No one will be coerced into taking a poison pill, supporters insist. The “right to die” will apply only to those with six months to live or less. Doctors will take into account the possibility of depression. There is no slippery slope.

Fair enough, but I remain skeptical. There’s been scant evidence of abuse so far in Oregon [and] Washington . . . , the [two] states where physician-assisted death is already legal, but abuse — whether spousal, child or elder — is notoriously underreported, and evidence is difficult to come by. What’s more, Massachusetts registered nearly 20,000 cases of elder abuse in 2010 alone.

Monday, October 29, 2012

Assisted Suicide Users are Older People with Money

By Margaret Dore, Esq., Updated October 29, 2012

Users of assisted suicide in Oregon and Washington are overwhelmingly white and generally well-educated.[1]  Many have private insurance.[2]  Most are age 65 and older.[3]  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.[4] 

In the United States, elder financial abuse costs elders an estimated $2.9 billion per year.[5] Perpetrators include strangers, family members and friends.[6]. The goals of financial abuse perpetrators are achieved "through deceit, threats, and emotional manipulation of the elder."[7]

The Oregon and Washington assisted suicide acts, and the similar Massachusetts proposal, do not protect users from this abuse. Indeed, the terms of these acts encourage abuse. These acts allow heirs and other persons who will benefit from an elder's death to actively participate in his or her lethal dose request.[8] There is also no oversight when the lethal dose is administered, not even a witness is required.[9] This creates the opportunity for an heir, or someone else who will benefit from the person's death, to administer the lethal dose to that person without his consent.[10]  Even if he struggled, who would know?

This is not to say that all persons who use the Oregon and Washington acts are subject to abuse or that their actions are not voluntary.  Rather, the Oregon and Washington acts do not protect such persons from abuse.  Neither will the Massachusetts proposal.

For more information about problems with the Massachusetts' proposal, click here and here. For a "fact check" on the proposal, click here.

[1] See the most current official report from Washington State, "Washington State Department of Health 2011 Death with Dignity Act Report, Executive Summary ("Of the 94 participants in 2011 who died, . . . 94% were white, non-Hispanic . . .75 percent had at least some college education"), available at http://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Documents/5300/DWDA2011.pdf  See also the most current official report from Oregon, also for 2011 ("most [users] were white (95.6%) [and] well-educated (48.5% had at least a baccalaureate degree) . . .", available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year14.pdf
[2] See Washington's report in note 1, page 5, table 2 (46% had private insurance only, or a combination of private and Medicaid/Medicare).  See Oregon's report in note 1("patients who had private insurance (50.8%) was lower in 2011 than in previous years (68.0%). . ."
[3] See Washington's report in note 1, page 5, Table 2 (74% were aged 65 or older).  See Oregon's report in note 1, page 2 ("Of the 71 DWDA deaths during 2011, most (69.0%) were aged 65 years or older; the median age was 70 years").
[4]  Educated persons are generally financially better off than non-educated persons; persons with private insurance have funding to pay for it; seniors generally are well off.  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, Executive Summary, page 4 ("Elders’ vulnerabilities and larger net worth make them a prime target for financial abuse").
[5]  The Met Life Study of Elder Financial Abuse, " Crimes of Occasion, Desperation, and Predation Against America's Elders," June 2011, page 2, key findings ("The annual financial loss by victims of elder financial abuse is estimated to be at least $2.9 billion dollars, a 12% increase from the $2.6 billion estimated in 2008"). 
[6] Id.
[7] Id., page 3.
[8] See e.g. Margaret K. Dore, "'Death with Dignity': What Do We Advise Our Clients?," King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, May 2009; and Margaret K. Dore, Memo to Joint Judiciary Committee (regarding Bill H.3884, now Ballot Question No. 2), Section III
[9] Id.  See also entire proposed Massachusetts Act at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/ma-initiative.pdf
[10]  The drugs used, Secobarbital and Pentobarbital, are water and alcohol soluable, such that they can be injected without consent, for example, to a sleeping individual.  See "Secobarbital Sodium Capsules, Drugs.Com, at  http://www.drugs.com/pro/seconal-sodium.html  If the person wakes up and trys to fight, who would know? 

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Ballot Question 2: A Recipe for Elder Abuse

A repeat post brought back by popular demand; for a more in depth analysis, please  click here.

By Margaret Dore
December 2, 2011

A ballot initiative to legalize physician-assisted suicide is pending in Massachusetts.[1]

Physician-assisted suicide is legal in just two states: Oregon and Washington.  In both states, acts to legalize the practice were enacted via sound-bite ballot initiative campaigns.[2]  In a third state, Montana, there is a court case that gives doctors a potential defense to prosecution for homicide.  No such law has made it through the scrutiny of a legislature.  Just this year, bills to legalize assisted suicide were defeated in Montana, New Hampshire and Hawaii.[3] Just this year, Idaho enacted a statute to strengthen its law against assisted suicide.[4]

The proposed Massachusetts act is a recipe for elder abuse.  Key provisions include that an heir, who will benefit financially from a patient's death, is allowed to participate as a witness to help sign the patient up for the lethal dose.  See Section 21 of the act, allowing one of two witnesses on the lethal dose request form to be an heir, available here.  This situation invites undue influence and coercion.

Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight.  See entire proposed act, available here.  For example, there are no required witnesses when the lethal dose is administered.  See act here.  Without disinterested witnesses, an opportunity is created 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.  Even if he struggled who would know?

In Massachusetts, proponents are framing the issue as religious.  In Washington state, proponents used a similar tactic and even religious slurs to distract voters from the pitfalls of legalization.  What the proposed law said and did was all but forgotten.
        
Do not be deceived.
* * *

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.  Her publications include Margaret K. Dore, "Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Recipe for Elder Abuse and the Illusion of Personal Choice," The Vermont Bar Journal, Winter 2011.
* * *
[1]  To view the proposed Massachusetts initiative, click here:  http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/ma-initiative.pdf 
[2]  Oregon's physician-assisted suicide act was enacted via Ballot Measure 16.  Washington's act was enacted via Initiative 1000.
[3]  In Montana, SB 167 was tabled in Committee and subsequently died on April 28, 2011.  In New Hampshire, HB 513 was defeated on March 16, 2011.  In Hawaii, SB 803 was defeated on February 7, 2011 .
[4]  On July 1 2011, Idaho's new statute strengthening Idaho law against assisted suicide went into effect:   http://www.choiceillusionidaho.org/2011/07/idaho-strengthens-law.html

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Vote No on Question 2

"Ignoring any moral issues, the initiative is vulnerable to abuse and should not be passed into law."

By Anthony Speranza


http://www.salemnews.com/opinion/x1684126269/Column-Vote-no-on-Question-2

This year in Massachusetts, voters will decide on Question 2: an initiative petition to legalize physician-assisted suicide in the commonwealth. Ignoring any moral issues, the initiative is vulnerable to abuse and should not be passed into law.

Dignity 2012, a group in support of the issue referred to as "Death with Dignity," claims the proposed law "contains strict safeguards to ensure that the patient is making a voluntary and informed decision." The safeguards written into the law, however, are insufficient. First, nearly all responsibility rests in the hands of a patient's physician. Section 6 of the initiative states that no patient shall be prescribed the life-ending medication if either of two physicians deem that the patient suffers from a "psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression." While the theory behind this precaution is practical, it falls short of effective. Only 15 days separate the date of request from the date of prescription of the lethal dose. There is no clear definition of what tests must be run in this time to check a patient's mental capacity. According to Jennifer Popik, a medical ethics attorney, "There is no requirement that the patient be given a psychiatric evaluation... This means that a physician ... can prescribe suicide to that patient without even a specialist's evaluation." The "safeguard" concerning mental health is rendered useless because a psychiatric evaluation is not compulsory. A similar law in Oregon serves as a warning: According to a report by the Oregon Public Health Department, of the 71 patients who chose physician-assisted suicide last year, only one was referred for psychiatric evaluation.

Monday, October 1, 2012

Ballot Question 2: Whose Choice?

By Margaret Dore

I am an attorney in Washington State, where assisted suicide is legal.  Our law was passed by a ballot initiative in November 2008 and went into effect in March 2009.  Our law is similar to Ballot Question 2. 

In Washington State, my former clients own two adult family homes (small elder care facilities).  Four days after the election, the adult child of one of their residents asked about getting pills for the purpose of causing his father's death.  It wasn't the older gentleman asking for his "right to die."[1]

At that time, our law had not yet gone into effect; the man died before it did.  But if our law had been in effect, whose choice would it have been?  The choice of his son, or the choice of the older gentleman?

In Washington state, we have already had suggestions to expand our law to direct euthanasia for non-terminal people.[2].  More disturbing, there was this discussion in the Seattle Times suggesting euthanasia for people unable to afford care, which would be on an involuntary basis for those persons who want to live.  Columnist Jerry Large stated:

"After Monday's column, some readers were unsympathetic [to people unable to afford care], 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."[3]

I never saw anything like this prior to our law's being passed in 2008.  Be careful what you vote for.

* * * 

[1]  Letter from Juan Carlos to the Montana Board of Medical Examiners, posted July 1, 2012, at http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2012/07/dear-montana-board-of-medical-examiners.html 
[2]  See e.g., 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 
[3]  Jerry Large, "Planning for old age at a premium," The Seattle Times, March 8, 2012 at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2017693023.html 

Friday, May 18, 2012

Boston Globe: Philip Moran & Karen Schneiderman

May 13, 2012  http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-13/magazine/31664040_1_human-life-physicians-suicide

ON DEATH AND DYING

“Dying Wishes” in the April 29 Globe Magazine refers to “Death with Dignity” instead of what it really is: “physician-assisted suicide.” As stated by then chief justice William Rehnquist in the 1997 case of Washington v. Glucksberg, “An examination of our Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices demonstrates that Anglo American common law has punished or otherwise disapproved of assisted suicide for over 700 years.” He goes on to state that there are at least five government interests to support that history.  They are prohibiting killing and preserving human life; preventing the serious public health problem of suicide, especially among the young, the elderly, and those suffering from untreated pain or depression; protecting the medical profession’s integrity; protecting the poor, elderly, disabled, and persons in other vulnerable groups from pressure to end their lives; and avoiding a possible slide toward voluntary and even involuntary euthanasia. I submit these are more than sufficient reasons to vote “No” on this ballot question.
Philip D. Moran / Salem 

With fear and rage I respond to the article “Dying Wishes.” A ballot question? The idea of people voting on the worth of a human being is sickening, but my greatest fear has to do with the notion that if a person chooses to request assistance dying, that person is clearly depressed. During such depression it is impossible to make a clear decision. We all have such periods, sick or not, but almost always, with time or therapy or medication or support, that feeling goes away. As a person with a lifelong disability, I have had serious health crises and wished to terminate my life, but I have been fortunate to have medical care and family and friends to help me through my struggles. Those who are not so fortunate rely on the medical establishment. For those of us with disabilities and for elderly folks, our value in this society is already less significant, and we need to rely on physicians to help keep us alive, rather than kill us in the name of compassion.
Karen Schneiderman / Jamaica Plain