Theresa Schrempp Letter to the Boston Globe: "Even the composition of the photo is the same"

Dear Editor:

I am a lawyer in Washington State where assisted suicide was unfortunately legalized by an initiative in 2008.  I couldn't help but notice that your article promoting a similar initiative in Massachusetts follows the same template as articles that ran here.  Even the composition of the photo is the same.  ["Dying Wishes, April 29, 2012]

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.