"Do or Refer": Proponents Show Their True Nature

Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

By Margaret Dore Esq., MBA

The Massachusetts bill seeking to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia as traditionally defined, includes a provision requiring doctors to "do or refer," i.e., to perform assisted suicide or euthanasia, by prescribing and/or administering the lethal dose, or to make an effective referral to another doctor, who will do it.  (H 1194 Sec. 15(4)(a) & (b)(iv)).*

The significance of do or refer is that it's anti-patient, by not allowing doctors to use their best judgment for the patient.

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? 

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

Legalization Will Not Prevent Violent Deaths

By Margaret Dore

Assisted suicide proponents claim that legal assisted suicide will prevent violent deaths such as those by murder-suicide and suicide involving a handgun.[1] In Oregon where assisted-suicide has been legal since 1997, murder-suicide has not been eliminated.[2]  Indeed, murder-suicides follow "the national pattern."[3]  As discussed below, suicides involving a handgun have also not been eliminated.  Oregon's suicide rate has instead increased with legalization of assisted suicide.

Oregon’s overall suicide rate, which excludes suicides under Oregon’s assisted suicide act, is 35% above the national average.[4] This rate has been "increasing significantly since 2000."[5]  Just three years prior, in 1997, Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide.[6] Other suicides thus increased, not decreased, with legalization of assisted suicide.  Moreover, many of these deaths are violent.  For 2007, which is the most recent year reported, "[f]irearms were the dominant mechanism of suicide among men."[7] The claim that legalization will prevent violent deaths is without factual support.

* * *

[1]  See e.g. Lindsey Anderson, Associated Press, "Mass. Voters Consider Physician-Assisted Suicide," October 20, 2012, at http://www.wbur.org/2012/10/20/physician-assisted-suicide ("Dr. Marcia Angell ... believes [her father] would've lived longer and not turned to a pistol had assisted suicide been available").
[2]  See Don Colburn, "Recent murder-suicides follow the national pattern," The Oregonian, November 17, 2009 ("In the span of one week this month in the Portland area, three murder-suicides resulted in the deaths of six adults and two children") (Available at http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2009/11/recent_murder-suicides_follow.html); Baldr Odinson, "Fourth Murder-Suicide for the Eugene Area," New Trajectory:  A blog for Ceasefire Oregon, March 2, 2011, ("Harry Hanus, age 74, shot and killed his wife, Barbara, before taking his own life")

People Living with HIV/AIDS: Is This What You Want?

By Margaret Dore, Esq.
Updated August 16, 2016

Some HIV/AIDS groups have endorsed Ballot Question 2, which seeks to legalize assisted suicide in Massachusetts.  This post suggests that these groups and/or persons living with HIV/AIDS should give the issue a second look. 

1.  "Terminal" Does Not Mean "Dying" 

The proposed act applies to persons with a "terminal disease," defined in terms of less than six months to live.[1]  In Oregon, where there is a similar act, the six months to live is determined without requiring treatment.[2] 

In other words, a person living with HIV/AIDS, who is doing well, but who is dependent on treatment to live, could be "terminal" for the purpose of assisted suicide eligibility. 

2.  The Significance of a Terminal Label

Once someone is labeled "terminal," an easy justification can be made that his or her treatment should be denied in favor of someone more deserving.  In Oregon, "terminal" patients are not only denied treatment, they are offered assisted suicide instead.  In a recent affidavit, Oregon doctor Ken Stevens states:

9.  Under the Oregon Health Plan, there is . . .  a financial incentive towards suicide because the Plan will not necessarily pay for a patient’s treatment.  For example, patients with cancer are denied treatment if they have a "less than 24 months median survival with treatment" and fit other criteria. . . . 

12. All such persons . . .  will . . . be denied treatment. Their suicides under Oregon’s assisted suicide act will be covered.[3]

Dr. Stevens concludes:

14. The Oregon Health Plan is a government health plan administered by the State of Oregon. If assisted suicide is legalized in [your jurisdiction], your government health plan could follow a similar pattern. If so, the plan will pay for a patient to die, but not to live.[4]

3.  Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup

In Oregon, the most well known persons denied treatment and offered suicide are Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup.[5]  Neither saw this event as a celebration of their "choice."  Wagner said: "I'm not ready to die."[6]  Stroup said: "This is my life they’re playing with."[7] 

4.  Proposals for Expansion

I live in Washington State, where assisted suicide is legal under an act passed in 2008.[8]  Four years later, there have already been proposals to expand our act to non-terminal people.[9]  Moreover, this year, there was a Seattle Times column suggesting euthanasia as a solution for people unable to afford care, which would be nonvoluntary or involuntary euthanasia for those persons who want to live.[10]

Prior to our law's being passed, I never heard anyone talk like this.

Is this what you want?

Legal assisted suicide puts anyone with a significant health condition at risk of being steered to suicide.  For other reasons to vote against assisted suicide, please click here for talking points.  I hope that AIDS groups and people living with AIDS reconsider any support of Ballot Question No. 2.  Thank you.

* * *

Margaret Dore is a lawyer in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. She is also President of Choice is an Illusion, a non-profit corporation opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia.  Ms. Dore has been licensed to practice law since 1986. She is a former Law Clerk to the Washington State Supreme Court. She has several published court cases and many published scholarly articles. Her viewpoint is that people should be in control of their own fates, but that assisted suicide laws do not deliver. This year, she had an editorial published in the NY Times: "Assisted Suicide: A Recipe for Elder Abuse." For more information see www.margaretdore.com and www.choiceillusion.org

* * *

[1]  The proposed Massachusetts act, Section 1(13) states:  "'Terminal disease" means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months.  To view the entire act, go here:  http://www.massagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/initiatives-text.html

[2]  For an example, see the affidavit of Oregon doctor Ken Stevens describing his patient Jeanette Hall.  She had been given six months to a year to live by another doctor, i.e. without treatment, and had decided that she would use Oregon's law.  Dr. Stevens convinced her to be treated instead.  His affidavit can be viewed here:  http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/signed-ken-stevens-affidavit_001.pdf  Oregon's definition of "terminal disease" can be viewed here: http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Pages/ors.aspx

[3]  Dr. Stevens affidavit can be viewed here: http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/signed-ken-stevens-affidavit_001.pdf 

[4]  Id.

[5]  Susan Donaldson James, "Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon," ABC News, August 6, 2008, available at http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=5517492&page=1 and "Letter noting assisted suicide raises questions,"  KATU TV, July 30, 2008, available at http://www.katu.com/news/26119539.html

[6]  KATU TV article at Note 5.

[7]  ABC News article at Note 5.
[8]  Washington State's assisted suicide law can be viewed here:  http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.245

[9]  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

[10]  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 [to people who couldn't afford their own 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.")

Assisted Suicide is Not Legal in Montana

Dear Editor:

I am a Montana State Senator.  I disagree with your article, "Redefining Physicians' Role in Assisted Dying," claiming that assisted suicide is legal in Montana.  At the very least, Montana law is unclear.

Last year, Senate Bill 167, which would have legalized assisted suicide in Montana, failed.  This leaves assisted suicide governed by a Montana Supreme Court case, Baxter v. Montana.  An analysis by attorneys Greg Jackson and Matt Bowman describes Baxter as follows:

"The Montana Supreme Court s assisted-suicide decision . . . didn't even 'legalize' assisted-suicide. . . . After Baxter, assisted-suicide continues to carry both criminal and civil liability risks for any doctor, institution, or lay person involved."[1]

Since then, competing articles have appeared in the official Montana State Bar publication disputing whether Baxter legalized assisted suicide.[2]  The editor's headline states: "Court ruling still leaves the issue open to argument." [3]

Correct reporting would be that assisted suicide is not legal in Montana and/or hotly disputed.  Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Senator Greg Hinkle
Thompson Falls, MT
 

* * * 

[1] Greg Jackson, Esq., and Matt Bowman, Esq., "Analysis of Implications of the Baxter Case on Potential Criminal Liability," Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity, April 2010, available at http://montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Analysis-of-Baxter.pdf                                                
[2] Senator Anders Blewett (pro article), Senator Jim Shockley and Margaret Dore (con article), "The aid-in-dying debate: Can a physician legally help a patient die in Montana?  Court ruling still leaves the issue open to argument," The Montana Lawyer, November 2011, available at http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/montana-lawyer-pro-con-articles-nov-2011.pdf
[3]  Id.

New England Journal of Medicine Article Misleading

Dear Editor

I am a lawyer in Washington State, one of two states where assisted-suicide is legal.  The other state is Oregon, which has a similar law.  Lisa Lehmann's article, "Redefining Physicians' Role in Assisted Dying," is misleading regarding how these laws work.

First, the Oregon and Washington laws are not limited to people in their "final months" of life.[1,2]  Consider for example, Jeanette Hall, who in 2000 was persuaded by her doctor to be treated rather than use Oregon's law.  She is alive today, twelve years later.[3]

Second, these laws are not "safe" for patients.[4][5]  For example, neither law requires a witness at the death.  Without disinterested witnesses, the opportunity is created for the patient's 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?  

Third, the fact that persons using Oregon's law are "more financially secure" than the general population is consistent with elder financial abuse, not patient safety.  Do not be deceived. 

* * *

[1]  Margaret K. Dore, "Aid in Dying: Not Legal in Idaho; Not About Choice," The Advocate, official publication of the Idaho State Bar, Vol. 52, No. 9, pages 18-20, September 2010, available at http://www.margaretdore.com/pdf/Not_Legal_in_Idaho.pdf.
[2]  Kenneth Stevens, MD, Letter to the Editor, "Oregon mistake costs lives," The Advocate, official publication of the Idaho State Bar, Vol. 52, No. 9, pages 16-17, September 2010, available at http://www.margaretdore.com/info/September_Letters.pdf 
[3]  Ms. Hall corresponded with me on July 13, 2012.
[4]  See article at note 1.  See also Margaret Dore, "Death with Dignity": A Recipe for Elder Abuse and Homicide (Albeit Not by Name)," at 11 Marquette Elder's Advisor 387 (Spring 2010), original and updated version available at http://www.choiceillusion.org/p/the-oregon-washington-assisted-suicide.html 
[5]  Blum, B. and Eth, S.  "Forensic Issues: Geriatric Psychiatry." In Kaplan and Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, Seventh Edition, B. Sadock and V. Sadock editors.  Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, pp. 3150-3158, 2000. 

Users of Assisted Suicide are Seniors with Money

By Margaret Dore, Esq.
Updated August 18, 2012

Users of assisted suicide "are overwhelmingly white, well educated and financially comfortable."[1]  They are also age 65 and older.[2]  In other words, users are older people with money, which would be the middle class and above, a group disproportionately at risk of financial abuse.[3]

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 financial abuse.  These acts allow heirs and other persons who will benefit from an elder's death to actively participate in the lethal dose request.[4]  There is also no oversight when the lethal dose is administered, not even a witness is required.[5]  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.  Even if he struggled, who would know?

Under the Washington act and the Massachusetts' proposal, the death certificate is required to reflect a natural death.[6]  In Oregon, a natural death is listed by custom.[7]  A concerned nephew, learning that his aunt has suddenly died and that she had a new will favoring a ne'er do will son, will thereby be mislead as to what actually happened.

This does not mean that all deaths under the Oregon and Washington acts are  abusive or without consent.  What it means is that these laws, and the similar Massachusetts proposal, invite abuse and have a distinct lack of transparency.  In Oregon, not even law enforcement is allowed to access state-collected information about these deaths.[8]  Even if the person struggled, who would know?

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

* * *
[1]  Katie Hafner, "In Ill Doctor, a Surprise Reflection of Who Picks Assisted Suicide," New York Times, August 11, 2012.
[2]  See e.g., the most current official report from Oregon, "Oregon Death with Dignity Act--2011" ("Of the 71 DWDA deaths during 2011, most (69.0%) were aged 65 years or older; the median age was 70 years"), available athttp://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year14.pdf
[3]  The MetLife Study of Elder Financial Abuse, "Crimes of Occasion, Desperation, and Predation Against America's Elders," June 2011 (a follow up to MetLife's 2009 "Broken Trust: Elders, Family, and Finances"), available athttp://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/2011/mmi-elder-financial-abuse.pdf.
[4]  See Memo to Joint Judiciary Committee (regarding Bill H.3884, now ballot measure No. 2), Section III.A.2. ("Someone else is allowed to speak for the patient") and and Section II.C. ("One of the [two] witnesses [on the lethal dose request form] is allowed to be an heir who will benefit financially from the patient's death"), available at http://www.massagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/memo-to-joint-judiciary-committee.html
[5]  See above memo at Section III.A.1("No witnesses at the death").  See also entire proposed Massachusetts Act at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/ma-initiative.pdf 
[6]  See proposed Massachusetts Act at Section 4 (2) ("The attending physician may sign the patient's death certificate which shall list the underlying terminal disease as the cause of death").  Washington's act, RCW 70.245.040(2) has this same language. 
[7]  See e.g., Charles Bentz, "Oregon Doctor's Letter to Massachusetts Medical Society," posted November 28, 2011 ("His death certificate listed the cause of death as melanoma.  The public record is not accurate. My depressed patient did not die from his cancer, but at the hands of a once-trusted colleague."), available at http://www.massagainstassistedsuicide.org/2011/11/oregon-doctors-letter-to-massachusetts.html#more 
[8]  See E-mail from Alicia A. Parker, Mortality Research Analyst, Center for Health Statistics, Oregon Health Authority, January 4, 2012 ("We have been contacted by law enforcement and legal representatives in the past, but
have not provided identfying information of any type"), available at http://epcdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/alicia-a-parker.pdf

Press Release: Mass Against Assisted Suicide

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 


Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide, has launched a new website agianst the Massachusetts "death with dignity" initiative.  The website's name is "Mass Against Assisted Suicide." 

Margaret Dore, President of Choice is an Illusion and an elder law attorney, states: "The initiative's introduction declares that the process will be 'entirely voluntary' for the patient.  The act, as written, does not deliver on this promise.  The act is instead a recipe for elder abuse."

The proposed act has an application process to obtain a lethal dose for the purpose of causing the patient's death.  The act allows the patient's heir, who will benefit financially from the death, to actively help the patient sign up for the lethal dose.  Dore states:  "The act allows an heir to participate as one of two witnesses on the lethal dose request form.  The act also allows someone else to speak for the patient." 

"This does not meet the stink test," said Dore. "Signing away your life under the proposed act has less protection than signing a will."

Dore explained that when signing a will, similar conduct can create a presumption of fraud and undue influence.

Dore also pointed out that there is no oversight once the lethal dose of has been filled under the proposed act.

"The death is not required to be witnessed by disinterested persons," Dore said.  "Indeed, no one is required to be present." 

"Without disinterested witnesses, the opportunity is created for an heir, or someone else who will benefit from the death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent.  Who would know?"

This year in New Hampshire, a similar "death with dignity" act was defeated in the House of Representatives by a vote of 234 to 99. 

Former New Hampshire State Representative Nancy Elliott said: "Assisted suicide laws empower heirs and others to pressure and abuse older people to cut short their lives.  This is especially an issue when the older person has money.  There is no assisted suicide bill that you can write to correct this huge problem."

* * *

To view the new website, go here:  http://www.massagainstassistedsuicide.org  To learn more about "Choice" is an Illusion, visit:  www.choiceillusion.org  To learn about the New Hampshire bill that failed, go here:  http://www.choiceillusionnewhampshire.org/2011/05/new-hampshire-defeats-assisted-suicide.html

* * *

Margaret Dore is President of Choice is an Illusion and an elder law attorney. Contact her at 206-389-1754 or margaretdore@margaretdore.com.  See also http://www.margaretdore.org/   

Assisted Suicide: A Recipe for Elder Abuse

By Margaret Dore

A ballot initiative to legalize physician-assisted suicide via a "death with dignity" act is now in the signature-gathering stage in Massachusetts.[1]

Physician-assisted suicide is legal in just two states: Oregon and Washington.[2]  In both states, acts to legalize the practice were enacted via sound-bite ballot initiative campaigns.[3]  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.[4] Just this year, Idaho enacted a statute to strengthen its law against assisted suicide.[5]

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.  The act does not require witnesses when the lethal dose is administered.  See act here.  Without disinterested witnesses, an opportunity is created for an heir, or another person who will benefit from the patient's death, to administer the lethal dose to him 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://www.mass.gov/Cago/docs/Government/2011-Petitions/11-12.pdf
[2]  In Montana, there is a court decision that gives doctors who cause or aid a suicide, a potential defense to criminal prosecution for homicide.  The decision does not legalize assisted suicide by giving doctors or anyone else immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability.  To learn more, go here:  http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/baxter-case-analysis.html  The assisted suicide promotion group, Compassion & Choices, has a new campaign claiming that assisted suicide is "already legal" in Hawaii.  This is an odd claim given that bills to legalize assisted suicide in Hawaii have repeatedly failed, most recently this year.  See here for the most recent bill: http://capitol.hawaii.gov/Archives/measure_indiv_Archives.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=803&year=2011
[3]  Oregon's physician-assisted suicide act was enacted via Ballot Measure 16.  Washington's act was enacted via Initiative 1000.
[4]  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 .
[5]  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