Not Dead Yet: A Deeper Look at Elderly Homicide-Suicides

From Not Dead Yet:  "society cannot lose sight of the fact that a person's life was taken, often without their consent." 

May 1, 2012

Last September, this blog discussed an article from a Pennsylvania newspaper that took a thoughtful, in-depth look at the tragically growing trend of elderly homicide/suicides.  When that story was written, there had been three such cases in the state since June of that year.

The number is now up to at least 6 in the last year.  Terrie Morgan-Besecker takes another in-depth look at elderly homicide/suicides and interviews a number of people about the larger picture (including me) to get beyond the 'mercy killing' theme that dominates the coverage of these tragedies.

An excerpt that includes a bit from my interview is below.  From TheAbington Journal, here is a sample of 'Loved to Death': 

But researchers who have studied murder-suicides among the elderly say they're troubled by society's tendency to view such deaths as mercy killings.

"One of the concerns is you don't want to make it sound like it's a viable thing to do," said Sonia Salari, a professor in the Department of Family and Consumer Studies at the University of Utah."  If we romanticize it, it makes it sound like it's OK."

Statistics regarding the number of elderly murder-suicides committed each year are difficult to come by, as no agency specifically tracks that category of deaths, Salari said.

In a 2005 study, Salari analyzed 225 intimate partner murder-suicides involving couples where either the victim or perpetrator was at least age 60. She gathered the data from news reports, police reports and obituaries published from 1999 to 2005.

The research showed that in 55 percent of the cases, health issues   involving either the victim or perpetrator were cited as a contributing factor. Approximately 7.5 percent of the victims had some sort of dementia.

Compassion or murder?

Salari said that, while she sympathizes with survivors who view the deaths as an act of compassion, society cannot lose sight of the fact that a person's life was taken, often without their consent.

"Some people don't consider it domestic violence, but we need to see it as that," she said. "You have two deaths. Most of the time the victim is not in on the plan."

Stephen Drake, a spokesman for Not Dead Yet, a nonprofit group that opposes assisted suicide laws, also expressed concern over how murder-suicides among the elderly are viewed.

"These are acts usually of desperation, not compassion," he said. "These are people who are feeling depressed or overwhelmed. It's often a consequence of an emotional crisis."

Please read the rest of the article here.  --Stephen Drake 

Bob Joyce: "Details of Mass. assisted-suicide bill raise concerns"

http://articles.boston.com/2012-04-20/letters/31366522_1_assisted-suicide-bill-ballot-question-life-ending-drugs

THIS STORY APPEARED IN the Boston Globe, April 20, 2012

I was glad to see that lawmakers in Vermont defeated an assisted suicide bill similar to the pending ballot question initiative here in Massachusetts. The article bringing the good news, however, risks conveying an inaccurate impression about how the Massachusetts proposal would work (“Mass. group hails defeat of Vermont suicide bill,” Boston.com, April 14).

The article suggests that the proposed ballot question would allow patients to “self-administer” life-ending drugs. The use of this term could lead the casual reader to think that self-administration is required. It is not. I am a lawyer who has read the proposal. It merely states that a patient “may” self-administer the lethal dose. There is no requirement that administration must be by self-administration.

Also of concern is the fact that the proposal does not require that administration be by disinterested people. Disinterested witnesses are also not required. These factors increase the risk of elder abuse by heirs and other people who stand to benefit from the death.

As a lawyer who has seen my older clients abused, I am hopeful that this Massachusetts proposal will follow the Vermont proposal to the grave.

Robert W. Joyce

Newton

A "Doctor & Heir Protection Bill"

By Margaret Dore

On April 2, 2012, the Attorney General issued draft ballot question title and draft yes/no statements for the assisted suicide initiative.  Below please find my objection based on the initiative's being a doctor and heir protection bill.  For a print copy, please click here.  

I.  INTRODUCTION
The proposed act in Petition 11-12 protects persons who cause or assist the death and/or suicide of another person.  This memo discusses why the draft title and one-sentence statements for the act are misleading and should be amended.


II.  THE ACT


A.  The Act Protects People who Cause or Assist a Patient’s Death and/or Suicide


Under current law, people who cause or assist another person’s death or suicide face serious legal consequences.  They can be convicted of a crime, including murder.[1]  They can be found civilly liable for assisting a suicide, committing malpractice and/or causing a wrongful death.[2]  They can also be deprived of an inheritance or life insurance proceeds payable due to the death.[3] 


With the proposed act, however, persons who cause or assist another person’s death and/or suicide are protected from these consequences.  The act also opens the door to new paths of elder abuse.


How the act works, some of its protections and how it will promote elder abuse are described below.

Fact Check for the Initiative, H.3884

  

Margaret Dore

March 1, 2012

1.  Legalization will Empower the Government

Proponents claim that legalizing assisted suicide will keep the government out of people's lives.  The opposite is true.

Fact check:  In Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, legalization has allowed the Oregon Health Plan, a government entity, to steer people to suicide.  The most well known cases involve Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup.  Each wanted treatment.  The Plan denied treatment and steered them to suicide by offering to pay for the suicides. Neither Wagner nor Stroup saw this as a celebration of their control. Wagner said: "I’m not ready to die." Stroup said: "This is my life they’re playing with."  See  See Susan Donaldson James, "Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon," ABC News, August 6, 2008; and "Letter noting assisted suicide raises questions," KATU TV, July 30, 2008.

2.  The Initiative Allows Someone Else to Administer the Lethal Dose

Proponents claim that only the patient may administer the lethal dose.  This is not true.

Fact check:  The initiative, H.3884, states that patients "may" self-administer the lethal dose. There is no language stating that administration “must” be by self-administration.  "Self-administer" is also a specially defined term that allows someone else to administer the lethal dose to the patient.  See here.

3.  An Heir is Allowed to Witness the Lethal Dose Request

Proponents claim that the lethal dose request form must be "independently witnessed" by two people.  This is not true. 

Fact check:  The initiative, Sections 3 and 21, provides that one of two witnesses on the lethal dose request form cannot be a patient’s heir or other person who will benefit financially from the patient's death; the other witness can be an heir or other person who will benefit financially from the death.

4.  Substantial Compliance

Proponents claim that the initiative has "strict safeguards" to protect patients.  The initiative, however, only requires "substantial compliance" with its provisions.  Section 18(1)(a) states:  "A person who substantially complies in good faith with provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to be in compliance with this chapter." 

5.  Assisted Suicide is a Recipe for Elder Abuse

Proponents claim that the initiative is safe, which is not true.

Fact check: The initiative does not require witnesses at the death.  Without disinterested witnesses, the opportunity is created for an heir, or someone else who will benefit financially from the death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without the patient's consent.  Even if he struggled, who would know?  

6.  Patients are not Necessarily Dying

Proponents imply that the initiative only applies to people in their "final days."  This is untrue.

Fact check:  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; and Jeanette Hall, "She pushed for legal right to die, and - thankfully - was rebuffed," Boston Globe, October 4, 2011.

7.  Assisted Suicide is a Wedge Issue

Proponents deny that assisted suicide is a "wedge issue" to legalize direct euthanasia of non-terminal people.

Fact check:  In Washington state, where assisted suicide has been legal since 2009, there has been a proposal to expand Washington's law to direct euthanasia for non-terminal people.  See Brian Faller, "Perhaps it's time to expand Washington's Death with Dignity Act," The Olympian, November 16, 2011.

8.  Legal Assisted Suicide Threatens People with Disabilities 

Proponents claim that people with disabilities are not at risk from legalization of assisted suicide, which is untrue.

Fact check:  Disability rights groups such as Not Dead Yet oppose assisted suicide as a threat to their lives.  In Oregon and Washington, official government forms for assisted suicide acts in those states promote disability as a reason to commit suicide.[1]  People with disabilities are thereby devalued.  In 2009, there was a proposed assisted suicide bill in New Hampshire that squarely applied to people with disabilities.[2]  If the initiative were to be passed now, people with disabilities see themselves as potentially next in line under a future expansion of that law.  As noted above, there has already been a proposal in Washington state to expand its law to direct euthanasia for non-terminal people. 

* * * 

[1]  See e.g. "Oregon Death with Dignity Act Attending Physician Follow-up Form," question 15, providing seven suggested answers as to why there was a lethal dose request.  Some of the answers are written in terms of disability being an acceptable reason to kill yourself.  These answers include:  "[A] concern about . . . the loss of control of bodily functions."

[2]  Stephen Drake and Not Dead Yet, "New Hampshire Poised to Redefine "Terminally Ill" - to PWDs and others for Assisted Suicide Eligibility," January 30, 2009 (regarding New Hampshire's 2009 assisted suicide bill, HB 304, which applied to people with disabilities, people with HIV/AIDS and other non-dying people).