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

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; 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.

Ken Stevens, MD: "Eleven years later she is thrilled to be alive"

November 27, 2011

To Massachusetts Medical Society 

Dear House of Delegates Officers and Other Interested Parties:

I understand that the Massachusetts Medical Association will be voting on changing its policy against physician-assisted suicide. I have been a cancer doctor in Oregon for more than 40 years.  The combination of assisted-suicide legalization and prioritized medical care based on prognosis has created a danger for my patients on the Oregon Health Plan (Medicaid).

The Plan limits medical care and treatment for patients with a likelihood of a 5% or less 5-year survival.  My patients in that category, who say, have a good chance of living another three years and who want to live, cannot receive surgery, chemotherapy or radiation therapy to obtain that goal.  The Plan guidelines state that the Plan will not cover “chemotherapy or surgical interventions with the primary intent to prolong life or alter disease progression.”  The Plan WILL cover the cost of the patient’s suicide.

Under our law, a patient is not supposed to be eligible for voluntary suicide until they are deemed to have six months or less to live.  In the well publicized cases of Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup, neither of them had such diagnoses, nor had they asked for suicide.  The Plan, nonetheless, offered them suicide.

In Oregon, the mere presence of legal assisted-suicide  steers patients to suicide even when there is not an issue of coverage.  One of my patients was adamant she would use the law.  I convinced her to be treated.  Eleven years later she is thrilled to be alive.  Please, don’t let assisted suicide come to Massachusetts.

        [Support for this letter regarding Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup can be found in these articles:  http://www.katu.com/news/26119539.html & http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1  My patient’s letter in the Boston Globe describing her being alive 11 years later can be read here: http://articles.boston.com/2011-10-04/bostonglobe/30243525_1_suicide-doctor-ballot-initiative   ]

Kenneth R.Stevens, Jr., MD
Sherwood, OR 

Professor Emeritus and former Chair, Radiation Oncology Department, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon

Oregon Doctor's Letter to Massachusetts Medical Society

RE:     Massachusetts Medical Society House of Delegates
Report: 105, 1-11(A), Physician-Assisted Suicide Policy.

To members of the Massachusetts Medical Society,

I practice internal medicine in Oregon where assisted suicide is legal.  I write to urge you to maintain your policy against physician-assisted suicide and have attached a copy of this letter to this email.  Contrary to marketing rhetoric by suicide advocates, the safeguards do not protect patients.  Please consider my patient’s story below.

I was caring for a 76 year-old man who presented to my office with a sore on his arm, eventually diagnosed as metastatic malignant melanoma.  I referred him to both medical and radiation oncology for evaluation and therapy. I had known this patient and his wife for over a decade. He was an avid hiker, a popular hobby here in Oregon, and as his disease progressed, he was less able to do this, becoming depressed, which was documented in his chart.My patient expressed a wish for doctor-assisted suicide to the medical oncologist, but rather than take the time to address depression or ask me, as his primary care physician, to talk with him, the specialist called me and asked me to be the "second opinion" for his suicide.  I told her that assisted suicide was not appropriate for this patient, but unfortunately, my concerns were ignored, and two weeks later my depressed patient was dead from an overdose prescribed by this doctor. His death certificate listed the cause of death as melanoma.

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

Boston Globe: "She pushed for legal right to die, and - thankfully - was rebuffed

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2011/10/04/she_pushed_for_legal_right_to_die_and___thankfully___was_rebuffed/

I DISAGREE with Scot Lehigh’s Sept. 23 column, which characterizes assisted suicide as only involving people who are going to die in “a few months or weeks’’ (“Death with dignity in Mass.,’’ Op-ed). I am a retired person living in Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal. Our law was enacted through a ballot initiative that I voted for. In 2000, I was diagnosed with cancer and told that I had six months to a year to live.

 

I knew that our law had passed, but I didn’t know exactly how to go about making use of it. I tried to ask my doctor, but he didn’t really answer me. I didn’t want to suffer. I wanted to do what our law allowed, and I wanted my doctor to help me. Instead, he encouraged me not to give up, and ultimately I decided to fight the disease. I had both chemotherapy and radiation.

 

I am so happy to be alive! It is now 11 years later.

 

If my doctor had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead. I thank him and all my doctors for helping me to choose “life with dignity.’’

 

Assisted suicide should not be legal. I hope Massachusetts does not make this terrible mistake.

 

Jeanette Hall

King City, Ore.

Oregon doctor finds fault with assisted suicide law

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2011/10/04/oregon_doctor_finds_fault_with_states_law/ 

 – +

I am a doctor practicing medicine in Oregon and Washington, where physician-assisted suicide is legal. I disagree with Scot Lehigh that these suicides are not like other suicides in which “a healthy person [takes] his life for reasons of despair, depression, or hopelessness’’ (“Death with dignity in Mass.,’’ Op-ed, Sept. 23).

First, doctors can be wrong. So, what looks like a few months to live can be years. For a good article on this subject, see Nina Shapiro’s January 2009 "Terminal Uncertainty" in the Seattle Weekly.

Second, despair, depression, and hopelessness are a part of assisted suicide. A few years ago, a patient of mine who was undergoing cancer treatment with a specialist became depressed, and expressed a wish for assisted suicide.

In most jurisdictions, suicidal ideation is interpreted as a cry for help. In Oregon, the only help my patient got was a lethal prescription intended to kill him.  Don’t make our mistake. Keep assisted suicide out of Massachusetts.

Dr. Charles J. Bentz

Portland, Ore.

 

The writer is an associate professor of medicine in the division of general medicine and geriatrics at Oregon Health & Science University.