Robert Joyce on Elder Abuse, Other Reasons to Vote No on Question 2

"The referendum shockingly increases the risk of abuse to elders ..."

http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/joyce-bulletin-letter-10-18-12-pas.pdf

Dear Editor:

It’s not clear why The Bulletin titled Joe Galeota’s recent column as it did [“Terrible,” October 11, 2012].

If it’s because the column offered no information about the content of the physician-prescribed suicide referendum, I agree. That is terrible. . . . 

Let’s get serious, and consider just a few of the many reasons why voters should defeat this flawed bill.

The referendum shockingly increases the risk of abuse to elders, many of whom do not have loving families and/or have lost their circle of friends and/or have no one to advocate for them. We should consider that Massachusetts had 19,500 reported cases of elder abuse in 2011. There are insufficient elder abuse investigators to keep up with the 54 new cases reported each day. One study has suggested that there are 23.5 unreported cases for every one reported case.

The referendum does not even provide the level of protection required when a person signs a will in Massachusetts (i.e., two disinterested witnesses), and there is absolutely no oversight at the time the lethal drugs would be administered. 

The Massachusetts Medical Society, representing more than 24,000 physicians and medical students, opposes the bill. So does the American Medical Society.

Insurance companies, hospitals and governmental medical providers have a clear and compelling financial interest in denying us of adequate end-of-life care.

How much do you trust insurers, hospitals and governments? Unless you answer “with my life,” you should oppose physician-prescribed suicide and vote NO on Question Two.

It would indeed be “terrible” if we allow this referendum to pass!

Robert W. Joyce

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.

Don't Make Washington's Mistake

My wife and I operate two adult family homes in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. I am writing to urge you to not make Washington's mistake.

Our assisted suicide law was passed via a ballot initiative in November 2008. During the election, that law was promoted as a right of individual people to make their own choices. That has not been our experience. We have also noticed a shift in the attitudes of doctors and nurses towards our typically elderly clients, to eliminate their choices.

Four days after the election, 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.

Since the act passed, we have also noticed that some members of the medical profession are quick to bring out the morphine to begin comfort care without considering treatment. Sometimes they do this on their own without telling the client and/or the family member in charge of the client's care.

Since our law was passed, I have also observed that some medical professionals are quick to write off older people as having no quality of life whereas in years past, most of the professionals we dealt with found joy in caring for them. Our clients reciprocated that joy and respect.

Someday, we too will be old. I, personally, want to be cared for and have my choices respected. I, for one, am quite uncomfortable with these developments. Don't make our mistake.

Juan Carlos

[Letter to the Montana Medical Examiner's Board, posted July, 1, 2012, at http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2012/07/dear-montana-board-of-medical-examiners.html ]

Brother "made the mistake of asking about assisted suicide"

Dear Editor:

I was disturbed to see that assisted suicide is being promoted in Massachusetts.

My brother, Wes Olfert, died last year in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.  When he was first admitted to the hospital, he made the mistake of asking about assisted suicide.  I say a mistake, because this set off a chain of events that interfered with his care and caused him unnecessary stress in what turned out to be the last months of his life.

By asking the question, he was given a "palliative care" consult by a doctor who heavily and continually pressured him to give up on treatment before he was ready to do so.  It got so bad that Wes actually became fearful of this doctor and asked us (me, my other  brother and a friend) to not leave him alone with her. Some of the other doctors and staff members seemed to also write Wes off once they learned that he had asked about assisted suicide.

I hope that Massachusetts does not legalize assisted suicide.

Marlene Deakins, RN

[Letter sent to the Boston Globe, but not published]

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 

John Norton: A Cautionary Tale

By Margaret Dore

In March 2012, I watched John Norton testify before the Joint Judiciary Committee of the Massachusetts Legislature.  A person with ALS, he had been told at age 18 or 19 that he would die in three to five years from paralysis.  Below find his story, at age 74, as submitted to a Canadian court yesterday via this affidavit: 

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN NORTON IN OPPOSITION
ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA

THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn on oath, STATES:

1. I live in Florence Massachusetts USA. When I was eighteen years old and in my first year of college, I was diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) by the University of Iowa Medical School. ALS is commonly referred to as Lou Gehrig’s disease. I was told that I would get progressively worse (be paralyzed) and die in three to five years.

2. I was a very physical person. The diagnosis was devastating to me. I had played football in high school and was extremely active riding bicycles. I also performed heavy labor including road construction and farm work. I prided myself for my physical strength, especially in my hands.

3. The ALS diagnosis was confirmed by the Mayo Clinic in Rochester Minnesota. I was eighteen or nineteen years old at the time. By then, I had twitching in both hands, which were also getting weaker. At some point, I lost the ability to grip in my hands. I became depressed and was treated for my depression. If instead, I had been told that my depression was rational and that I should take an easy way out with a doctor’s prescription and support, I would have taken that opportunity.

4. Six years after my initial diagnosis, the disease progression stopped. Today, my condition is about the same. I still can’t grip with my hands. Sometimes I need special help. But, I have a wonderful life. I am married to Susan. We have three children and one grandchild. I have a degree in Psychology and one year of graduate school. I am a retired bus driver (no gripping required). Prior to driving bus, I worked as a parole and probation officer. When I was much younger, I drove a school bus. We have wonderful friends. I enjoy singing tenor in amateur choruses. I help other people by working as a volunteer driver.

5. I will be 75 years old this coming September. If assisted suicide or euthanasia had been available to me in the 1950's, I would have missed the bulk of my life and my life yet to come. I hope that Canada does not legalize these practices.

The Oregon Health Plan Steers Patients to Suicide

Yesterday, the Canadian Department of Justice filed evidence in Leblanc v. Canada, including the affidavit of Oregon doctor Ken Stevens.  Therein, Dr. Stevens talks about his patient, Jeanette Hall.  He also describes how with legal assisted suicide, the Oregon Health Plan steers patients to suicide.  His affidavit concludes:

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

If assisted suicide is legal in Massachusetts, Massachusetts could also follow Oregon's pattern.

Please find the full text of his affidavit below.  To view a hard copy of his affidavit with supporting documentation, click here. 

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

In Oregon, other suicides have increased with legalization of physician-assisted suicide

Scott Helman's article about legalizing assisted suicide in Massachusetts implies that doing so will eliminate violent suicides.  I am physician in Oregon where assisted suicide is legal.  Official statistics from the state of Oregon do not support this claim.

Based on an Oregon Public Health report released in 2010, Oregon's overall suicide rate, which excludes suicide under Oregon's assisted suicide act, is 35% above the national average. The report documents that the rate has been "increasing significantly since 2000." 

Just three years prior, in 1997, Oregon legalized assisted suicide.  Suicide has 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 on Oregon's website, "[f]irearms were the dominant mechanism of suicide among men."  The claim that legalization prevents violent deaths is without factual support.

Factual support for the above statistics:

Oregon Health Authority News Release September 9, 2010 at http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/news/2010news/2010-0909a.pdf and,

"Suicides in Oregon, Trends and Risk Factors," Executive Summary, p.4, at http://public.health.oregon.gov/DiseasesConditions/InjuryFatalityData/Documents/Suicide%20in%20Oregon%20Trends%20and%20risk%20factors.pdf 

William L. Toffler MD

Professor of Family Medicine

Oregon Health & Science University

Portland OR

Benedetto Letter to Boston Globe

Dear Editor:

My wife and I operate an elder care facility in Washington State where assisted-suicide is legal.  I am writing to urge your readers to vote against assisted-suicide.

Washington's law was passed by a ballot measure in November 2008.  Four days after the election, an adult child of one of our clients asked about getting "them pills" (to kill the father). It wasn't the father saying that he wanted to die.

Since the act passed, we have also noticed that some members of the medical profession are quick to bring out the morphine to begin comfort care without considering treatment.  Sometimes they do this on their own without telling the client and/or the family member in charge of the client's care.

I have also observed that some medical professionals are quick to write off older people as having no quality of life whereas in years past, most of the professionals we dealt with found joy in caring for them. Our clients reciprocated that joy and respect.

Someday, we too will be old. I, personally, want to be cared for and have my choices respected. I, for one, am quite uncomfortable with these developments.  I hope that you can prevent assisted suicide.

Juan Carlos Benedetto

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

Washington State's Annual Report: No Information About Consent

By Margaret Dore

Washington assisted suicide act is similar to the proposed assisted suicide initiative in Massachusetts.[1]  


Washington's act was enacted via a ballot initiative in 2008 and went into effect in 2009.[2]  During the election, proponents claimed that its passage would ensure individuals control over their deaths.  A glossy brochure declared, "Only the patient — and no one else — may administer the [lethal dose]."[3]  The Act, however, does not say this anywhere.


Today, the Washington State Department of Health issued its annual report about Washington's act.[4]  That report, similarly, does not demonstrate that individuals are in control. The report provides no information as to whether the people who died under the act consented and/or acted voluntarily at the time of death.  The report instead talks about "ingestion" of the lethal dose.  A drug can be "ingested" while a person is asleep, sedated and/or not aware of his or her surroundings.


For more information about Washington's act, See Margaret Dore, "'Death with Dignity': What Do We Advise Our Clients?," Bar Bulletin, May 2009.[5]  

* * *

[1]  See RCW 70.245.010 et seq.
[2]  Washington's act was passed by in November 2008 as Initiative 1000 and was now been codified as RCW chapter 70.245.
[3]   I-1000 color pamphlet, "Paid for by Yes! on 1000."
[4]  See News Release here and report here.
[5]  Further information can be viewed here.

Meeting Against Assisted Suicide, Sat, May 19th!

Second Thoughts is a disability rights group opposed to the assisted suicide initiative.  Second Thoughts will be holding an educational and organizational meeting on Saturday, May 19, 2 PM-4:30 PM, at the Cambridge Senior Center In Central Sq., Cambridge. 

The meeting will be in the  first floor "ballroom," no elevator necessary.  For more information: info@second-thoughts.org 

Cambridge Citywide Senior Center
806 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

(617) 349-6060 for directions only

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.

Teen Suicide: "Assisted Suicide Law Sends Contradictory Message"

From Vermont where the legislature is considering a bill similar to the Massachusetts assisted suicide initiative.

http://vtdigger.org/2012/02/01/page-assisted-suicide-law-sends-contradictory-message/

Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Guy Page, a parent and resident of Cambridge.

In the Jan. 19 mail I received a letter from Lamoille Union High School, where my daughter is enrolled. It begins with the following sentence: “Over the last few years Vermont has seen an increase in suicide among young people.” It went on to describe a school initiative to hopefully address this awful development. I hope they are successful. All of my children have friends, or friends of friends, who have taken their own lives.

My eldest son, Tim, was a constant suicide risk through his teens. Through the wise, compassionate help of state social workers, Tim escaped his teen years alive. I can tell you that he was personally shaken by the implications, to him, of the proposed assisted suicide law several years ago. When he heard about it, my brilliant, troubled son began to shake in anger and almost despair. “Those hypocrites,” he said. “They’ve been telling me all this time that suicide is never OK.” It didn’t matter when I said the law is meant to address another set of problems – his teenaged hypocrisy-o-meter had already pegged assisted suicide as another example of “do as I say, not as I do, it’s all right for adults, not OK for kids.”

Recently I researched teen suicide in Oregon, where assisted suicide became legal in 1998. According to the Oregon health department website, there were more teen suicides after the law passed than before — 1999: 29 suicides. 2000: 44 suicides. 2001: 31. 2002: 37. 2003: 46. 2004: 52. The last two years were the highest two-year period in their survey. Furthermore, 94 percent of teen suicide attempts leading to hospitalization were caused by ingesting drugs – the only form of assisted suicide permitted by Oregon state law. Kids learn from their elders. 

Does this “prove” a link between the Oregon physician-assisted suicide law and teen suicide? No. But the burden of proof is on those who say, “Don’t worry, it will all be OK, none of our teens will think that.” As a parent of an at-risk child, I think this law may unintentionally tell other troubled teens “when it gets too hard it’s okay to end it all.” As the letter from my daughter’s high school says, the real world is a very hard place for some teens right now, and I think this law will just make it harder.

There are plenty of other reasons to oppose this bill. Before my wife passed in February 2011, she was appalled and upset at end-of-life questions asked of her in the ICU that to her seemed motivated by hospital cost-control. It drove a (thankfully temporary) wedge of distrust between her and her caregivers. So Vermont Insurance Commissioner Steve Kimball’s newspaper comments connecting this end-of-life issue with the high cost of health care were chilling. By contrast, Orange County Sen. Mark MacDonald’s daughter was one of Diane’s nurses and provided skilled, affirming care that should be the goal of the state’s health policy. But for me the teen suicide connection is reason enough for the Senate to drop this bill before it does irreversible harm.

---

Article printed from VTDigger: http://vtdigger.org/
URL to article: http://vtdigger.org/2012/02/01/page-assisted-suicide-law-sends-contradictory-message/
URLs in this post:

[1] : http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5635a2.htm

Massachusetts Voters, reject Petition 11-12

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/11/massachusetts-voters-reject-petition-1112/

If adopted this November, a ballot initiative in Massachusetts will legalize physician-assisted suicide for patients whose conditions are predicted to produce death within six months. Initiative Petition 11-12 claims to ensure that the patient's decision to commit suicide is voluntary. That claim, however, is misleading.

The initiative petition requires that two persons witness the patient's written request for a lethal prescription. One witness, however, can have a financial interest in the patient's death. That person can be the only witness present when the lethal drug is taken. Thus, an interested heir could pressure the patient, and no one would know because no objective witness is required when the drug is taken. Also, the petition would require the death certificate fraudulently to list the patient's underlying condition, rather than the lethal drug, as the cause of death.

Initiative Petition 11-12 uses terms like life-ending "medication" and death in a "humane and dignified manner." But there is nothing medicinal about poison and nothing dignified about the prospects for the abuse the initiative petition would allow. It is a bad law that the voters of Massachusetts should reject decisively.
 STEPHEN L. MIKOCHIK
Professor emeritus
Temple Law School

Assisted Suicide: A Recipe for Elder Abuse; Do Not be Deceived

For a more in depth legal analysis, please click here

By Margaret Dore

December 4, 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 over administration of the dose to the patient.  See entire proposed act, available here.  For example, no witnesses are required.  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 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



Massachusetts Medical Society Against Assisted Suicide

MMS Press Release:  MMS Physicians Reaffirm Opposition to Physician-Assisted Suicide

December 3, 2011
http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Online_Newsroom&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=65342

Contact: Richard P. Gulla
Phone: (781) 434-7101 Email: rgulla@mms.org

Waltham, Mass. -- December 3, 2010 – The Massachusetts Medical Society, the statewide association of physicians with more than 23,000 members, today voted to reaffirm its opposition to physician-assisted suicide, with its House of Delegates voting by a wide margin to maintain a policy the Society has had in effect since 1996.

Opposition to physician-assisted suicide was part of a larger policy statement that includes recognition of patient dignity at the end of life and the physician’s role in caring for terminally-ill patients. The policy was approved by more than 75 percent of the Society’s delegates.

Lynda Young, M.D., president of the Society, said that “Physicians of our Society have clearly declared that physician-assisted suicide  is inconsistent with the physician’s role as healer and health care provider. At the same time we recognize the importance of patient dignity and the critical role that physicians have in end-of-life care.”

Dr. Young said the policy goes beyond a single statement of opposition to physician-assisted suicide to include “support for patient dignity and the alleviation of pain and suffering at the end of life.” Additionally, it includes the Society’s commitment to “provide physicians treating terminally-ill patients with the ethical, medical, social, and legal education, training, and resources to enable them to contribute to the comfort and dignity of the patient and the patient’s family.”

The policy was one of several reaffirmed and adopted at the Society’s 2011 Interim Meeting, which brings hundreds of physicians from across the state to examine and consider specific resolutions on public health policy, health care delivery, and organizational administration by the Society’s House of Delegates, its policy-making body. Resolutions adopted by the delegates become policies of the organization. . . .

The Massachusetts Medical Society, with more than 23,000 physicians and student members, is dedicated to educating and advocating for the patients and physicians of Massachusetts. The Society publishes the New England Journal of Medicine, a leading global medical journal and web site, and Journal Watch alerts and newsletters covering 13 specialties. The Society is also a leader in continuing medical education for health care professionals throughout Massachusetts, conducting a variety of medical education programs for physicians and health care professionals. Founded in 1781, MMS is the oldest continuously operating medical society in the country. For more information, visit www.massmed.org, www.nejm.org, or www.jwatch.org.