New Yorkers received a dubious holiday gift this year.

"New Yorker Governor to sign assisted suicide bill."

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Article: New York Governor will sign assisted suicide bill (Link).

Bria Sandford Ramos wrote an excellent article that was published by - The Dispatch on December 23, 2025 titled: Death Comes For New York State.

Sandford Ramos explains:

In a press conference, Hochul said signing the bill was “one of the toughest decisions [she’s] ever made as governor,” acknowledging the concerns of many constituents about the effect the bill could have on the most vulnerable. As originally written, the bill would have made New York’s assisted suicide law one of the most permissive in the country, with no waiting period between request and access to lethal drugs, no required screening for depression, and minimal reporting requirements. Hochul’s signature is conditional upon the passage of amendments designed to tighten requirements and prevent abuse. But even with guardrails, the decision to sanction deliberate self-killing and legalize a procedure that the American Medical Association this summer called “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as a healer,” is a watershed moment.

Sharon Shapiro-Lacks

Sharon Shapiro-Lacks, a board member for the Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled, who is also a person with a disability told Sandford Ramos in an interview that:

But mercy is not what many people see in physician-assisted suicide. “She really, really did not understand where the disability community was coming from,”... Kathy Hochul could not get that this is not a religious issue, that we were objecting to the systemic issue that doctors would be making the call as to who has a rational cause to want to end their life prematurely.”

Shapiro-Lacks further stated:

While severe pain is often used as a reason to legalize assisted suicide—and is indeed one reason some patients seek it—many requests for lethal doses also come from those who fear loss of independence. Indeed, what many in the disabled community fear is a world where a loss of autonomy is seen as a valid reason to die.

 Shapiro-Lacks, who has been fighting for disability rights for more than 40 years continued:

 “People are more scared of losing their capacities more than of the pain,” ... “Throughout my life, I’ve been told, ‘Oh my, you’re remarkable, I could never live like that. If I had to be in a wheelchair, I don’t know what I would do.’ And that always bothered me, because that kind of inspiration is a backhanded compliment. What it actually says is, ‘I wouldn’t live if I were you.’”

The reality is that legalizing assisted suicide gives medical professionals the right in law to prescribe a lethal poison cocktail to cause your death. No one should be given the right in law to kill others. 

Assisted suicide directly affects people in their time of greatest need, when they are most vulnerable to the suggestion of death as a solution to difficult conditions.

Finally, legalizing assisted suicide does not end the debate. Once assisted suicide is legal, the assisted suicide lobby will lobby or launch court cases to expand the law. The original assisted suicide bill is designed to pass in the legislature, once passed incremental extensions will follow.

Great news: American Medical Association affirms it's opposition to assisted suicide.

The American Medical Association (AMA) has affirmed it's opposition to assisted suicide on June 9 at their House of Delegates Annual Meeting.

The following text is from the HOD Handbook as approved at the AMA meeting. This text can be found, starting on page 7 and is referred to as Report 18-A-25.

Of note, the AMA’s position on physician assisted suicide is not a position of neutrality and establishes that the profession of medicine should not support the legalization or practice of physician assisted suicide or see it as part of a physician’s role.

Physician assisted suicide occurs when “a physician facilitates a patient’s death by providing the necessary means and/or information to enable the patient to perform a life-ending act”. This act is sometimes referred to using other terminology such as medical aid in dying. Currently, there is no federal law governing physician assisted suicide; therefore, individual states are permitted to determine their own legal stance. At this time, 10 states and the District of Columbia permit this practice; however, most states have legislation banning this practice. Furthermore, two states have removed their residency requirement, effectively opening the practice of physician assisted suicide more broadly to patients throughout the US. 

Our AMA has a long-standing policy (H-270.965) opposing the legalization of physician assisted suicide. That said, our AMA is also opposed to the criminalization of physician medical judgement and the regulation of medical practice through criminal penalties (H-160.954, D-160.911, D27 275.944, H-5.980, D-5.999). Additionally, our AMA has policy preserving a physician’s right to exercise their autonomy (H-405.958, Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 1.1.7).

DISCUSSION 

The referred resolution addresses several issues encompassed within the broad context of physician-assisted suicide: terminology, opposition to the legalization and practice of physician assisted suicide, and opposition to the criminalization of physician participation in assisted suicide. This report addresses these topics in the context of our AMA’s current HOD policies and Code of Medical Ethics guidance. In addition, the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs has produced two informational reports to further discuss the ethical complexity of these topics as they relate to physician assisted suicide and the practice of medicine. 

Terminology 

The terminology used in the AMA Code of Medical Ethics and HOD policy to describe this practice offers a clear delineation of intent and action. The use of other terminology to describe this practice has the potential to confuse patients and unduly influence decision making [5]. Descriptors such as Medical Aid in Dying (MAID), physician aid-in-dying, and death with dignity could apply to palliative care practices and compassionate care near the end of life that do not include intending the death of patients. In CEJA Report 2-A-19, “Physician Assisted Suicide,” the Council determined that PAS was the terminology which described the practice best. The report supported this supposition with the following analysis which remains valid:

The Council recognizes that choosing one term of art over others can carry multiple, and not always intended messages. However, in the absence of a perfect option, CEJA believes ethical deliberation and debate is best served by using plainly descriptive language. In the Council’s view, despite its negative connotations, the term “physician assisted suicide” describes the practice with the greatest precision. Most importantly, it clearly distinguishes the practice from euthanasia. The terms “aid in dying” or “death with dignity” could be used to describe either euthanasia or palliative/hospice care at the end of life and this degree of ambiguity is unacceptable for providing ethical guidance. 

Opposition to the legalization and practice of physician assisted suicide 

AMA policy opposes the legalization and practice of physician assisted suicide stating that it is “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as a healer”. In developing CEJA Report 2 (A-19) which informed our AMA’s current ethics standards on physician assisted suicide, the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs analysis and deliberations were informed by available data and research. However, its decision was not an empirically dictated one, but rather, it was driven by the core values of medicine preserved within the Code of Medical Ethics. 

Although legislative developments since 2019 have occurred, recent empirical data reviewing physician assisted suicide practices in US and international jurisdictions where PAS and/or euthanasia are legal are subject to varied interpretations. As a matter of ethical reasoning, the data does not settle the ethical issue. Additionally, the relevant core ethical values at stake have not changed since the adoption of CEJA Report 2 (A-19). As such, the AMA’s position on physician assisted suicide should remain unchanged. 

Of note, the AMA’s position on physician assisted suicide is not a position of neutrality and establishes that the profession of medicine should not support the legalization or practice of physician assisted suicide or see it as part of a physician’s role.

Previous articles on the AMA assisted suicide position:

• American Medical Association (2023) maintains its opposition to assisted suicide (Link).
• Psychiatrists must prevent euthanasia, not provide it (Link).
• American Medical Association (2019) opposes assisted suicide (Link).
• American Medical Association (2019) overwhelmingly upholds its opposition to assisted suicide (Link).
• American Medical Association (AMA) (2018) Ethics Committee maintains opposition to assisted suicide (Link).

Ronald W. Pies, MD testimony opposing Massachusetts assisted suicide bill.

This testimoney was sent to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition with permission to publish.

Dr Ronald Pies

Written Testimony of Ronald W. Pies, MD

Massachusetts psychiatric physician and medical ethicist

In opposition to H. 2505/S.1486 MASSACHUSETTS END OF LIFE OPTIONS ACT

Submitted to Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Health - March 29, 2025

Dear Committee Members:

As a Massachusetts psychiatrist and medical ethicist, I write in firm opposition to H.2505/S.1486 MASSACHUSETTS END OF LIFE OPTIONS ACT—bills that would effectively legalize physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in Massachusetts. 

First, it is important to note the profound ethical problems inherent in the practice of PAS, misleadingly called “aid in dying” in some contexts. (PAS does not “aid” the natural dying process; rather, it terminates dying by terminating the patient, via provision of lethal drugs). The American Medical Association; the American Psychiatric Association; the American College of Physicians; and the National Council on Disability have all rejected physician-assisted suicide. [1] Neither the Massachusetts constitution nor the U.S. Constitution contains a right to assisted suicide; therefore, no individual has the right to authorize another to kill him or her in violation of federal and state criminal laws. (Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 735 (1997). Instead, Massachusetts has an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life. Furthermore, in the Massachusetts case of Kligler v. Att’y Gen., 491 Mass. 38, 70 (2022), the court rejected claims that a person has a “right” to assisted suicide. The court found no basis to “conclude that physician-assisted suicide ranks among those fundamental rights protected by the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.”

Contrary to popular misconceptions, the vast majority of persons requesting PAS are not in the grip of severe, intractable pain and suffering [2]. As data from Oregon have shown, the most common reasons for requesting medical aid in dying were fears regarding loss of autonomy (97.2%), inability to engage in enjoyable activities (88.9%), and loss of dignity (75.0%) [3] These understandable fears are best dealt with via empathic, face-to-face counseling and psychotherapy—not with the ingestion of poison.

Furthermore, a peaceful death is by no means guaranteed using current methods of PAS, as a recent piece by Lo pointed out: 

“Physicians who support PAD need to consider how to address the potential for adverse outcomes, including longer time to death than expected (up to 24 hours or more), awakening from unconsciousness, nausea, vomiting, and gasping.” [4] 

Data collected between 1998 and 2015 showed that the time between ingestion of lethal drugs and death ranged from 1 minute to more than 4 days. During this same period (1998-2015), 27 cases (out of 994) involved difficulty ingesting or regurgitating the drugs, and there were 6 known instances in which patients regained consciousness after ingesting the drugs. However, it is difficult to know the actual rate of drug-induced complications, because in the majority (54%) of cases between 1998 and 2015, no health care professional was present to attend and observe the patient’s death [5].

This last point highlights an additional ethical flaw in so-called “end of life options” bills, including H. 2505/S.1486: they do not require the presence of a physician or other medical personnel at the time the patient ingests the lethal drugs. In addition to denying the patient medical oversight of the suicide, this amounts to abandonment on the part of the physician who authorized the assisted suicide. To compound the ethical lapse, the physician is then permitted to falsify the cause of the patient’s death; i.e., “The attending physician may sign the patient's death certificate which shall list the underlying terminal disease as the cause of death” (lines 195-196 H. 2505/S.1486 ). This is plainly fraudulent, unethical, and inimical to research aimed at tracking the natural course of terminal illnesses.

A major failing of this bill is its ambiguity regarding the concept of “terminal illness.” The bill defines “Terminally ill”, as “having a terminal illness or condition which can reasonably be expected to cause death within 6 months, whether or not treatment is provided.” [italics added]. The phrase “whether or not treatment is provided” is vague and indecipherable. Does this mean that if a patient with, say, type 1 diabetes or anorexia nervosa refuses evidence-based treatment—and thus, is likely to die within 6 months—the patient nevertheless meets the criterion for “terminal illness”? Would a patient with a potentially fatal but treatable infectious disease who refuses treatment be classified as “terminally ill?” Such an interpretation radically distorts the historical meaning of the term “terminally ill.” Moreover, in practice, there are significant limitations in a physician’s ability to predict patient outcomes; this is true even for end-of-life physician specialists. For example, in a study of 364 doctors who provided survival estimates for 468 terminally ill patients, only 20% of predictions were accurate.[6]

Psychiatric and Medico-legal Considerations

As a psychiatrist, I find the bill’s safeguards against missing underlying psychiatric illness—which may compromise informed consent—woefully inadequate. Yes, the bill does mandate (section 8) that:

“…An attending physician shall refer a patient who has requested medical aid in dying medication under this chapter to counseling to determine that the patient is not suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment. The licensed mental health care professional shall review the medical history of the patient relevant to the patient’s current mental health and then shall submit a final written report to the attending physician.”

However, the bill defines licensed mental health professional very broadly, as “…a treatment provider who is a psychiatrist, psychologist, psychiatric social worker or psychiatric nurse and others who by virtue of education, credentials and experience are permitted by law to evaluate and care for the mental health needs of patients.” In what is literally a life-or-death determination, it is far from clear that the average “mental health professional” possesses the requisite skill set to assess mental capacity in the setting of terminal illness—an assessment that would challenge the skills of even a forensic psychiatrist.

Furthermore, there is no requirement in the bill for psychological evaluation at or very near the actual time of lethal drug ingestion, despite the fact that the patient’s mental status and mental capacity may fluctuate from day to day or week to week, in the course of a terminal illness. In addition, it seems that the bill would permit evaluation and “counseling” of the patient without even a face-to-face meeting; i.e., the process could be conducted via “telemedicine”—to my knowledge, a completely untested method of determining mental capacity or providing counseling in the context of a terminal illness.

Finally, there are no well-defined procedures specified in the bill by which any unused lethal drugs would be located and disposed of, in the event the patient elects not to ingest them. The bill merely states, “Any medical aid in dying medication dispensed under this chapter that was not self-administered shall be disposed of by lawful means. The medication dispenser shall be responsible for informing the individual collecting the medication what disposal by lawful means entails.” This says nothing about when the unused medication shall be disposed of—a day after the patient decides not to ingest it? A week? A month? What about the risk that in the interim, a family member—perhaps a young child—will happen upon the lethal medication and ingest it? A recent report in the Journal of Emergency Medical Services reveals that this possibility is not merely theoretical. [7] Do Massachusetts physicians really want to assume medico-legal liability in such a scenario? The bills as written are an invitation to litigation.

Conclusion

End-of-life care deserves far better than effectively handing terminally ill patients a bottle of lethal drugs—a practice that flies in the face of more than two millennia of Hippocratic medical practice. As Dr. John R. Peteet and I have argued, physician-assisted suicide will lead to “distorting the physician’s role; cheapening individual life; and abandoning the most vulnerable people” at their time of most urgent need. Surely as a society we can do better, by providing optimal, accessible psychiatric and palliative care. [8] As physician and medical ethicist Dr. Leon Kass eloquently put it,

“The legalization of physician-assisted suicide [perverts] the medical profession by transforming the healer of human beings into a technical dispenser of death. For over two millennia the medical ethic . . . has held as an inviolable rule, “Doctors must not kill.” The venerable Hippocratic Oath clearly rules out physician-assisted suicide. Without this taboo, medicine ceases to be a trustworthy and ethical profession. . . . We need to care for the dying, not make them dead.” [9]

Respectfully,

Ronald W. Pies, MD ronwpies@gmail.com
Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry
Lecturer on Bioethics & Humanities
SUNY Upstate Medical University;
Clinical Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry
Tufts University School of Medicine

References

1. Snyder Sulmasy L, Mueller PS; Ethics, Professionalism and Human Rights Committee of the American College of Physicians. Ethics and the Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide: An American College of Physicians Position Paper. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Oct 17;167(8):576-578. doi: 10.7326/M17-0938. Epub 2017 Sep 19. PMID: 28975242.

2. https://www.hcplive.com/view/twelve-myths-concerning-medical-aid-in-dying-or-physicianassisted-suicide

3. Loggers ET, Starks H, Shannon-Dudley M, Back AL, Appelbaum FR, Stewart FM. Implementing a Death with Dignity program at a comprehensive cancer center. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(15):1417-1424. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1213398

4. Lo B. Beyond legalization - dilemmas physicians confront regarding aid in dying. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(22):2060-2062. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1802218.

5. Oregon Health Authority, Public Health Division, Center for Health Statistics. Oregon Death With Dignity Act: data summary 2016. oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONRESEARCH/DEATHWITHDIGNITYACT/Documents/year19.pdf. Published February 10, 2107. Accessed June 6, 2018.

6. Nicholas A. Christakis, Extent and Determinants of Error in Doctors’ Prognoses in Terminally Ill Patients: Prospective Cohort Study, 7233 THE BMJ 469, 469-73 (2000).]

7. Death with Dignity: When the Medical Aid in Dying Cocktail Gets into the Wrong Hands. https://www.jems.com/patient-care/death-with-dignity-when-the-medical-aid-in-dying-cocktail-gets-into-the-wrong-hands

8. https://www.telegram.com/story/opinion/columns/2023/01/29/dr-john-peteet-and-dr-ronald-pies-oppose-physician-assisted-death/69831539007/

9. Kass LR. Dehumanization Triumphant. 1996. See: https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/deferring-mastery-death-hippocrates-judge-gorsuch-and-autonomy-fallacy

EPC - USA focuses on defeating New York assisted suicide bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The assisted suicide debate is growing in New York and EPC-USA has been instrumental in holding back the tide. The assisted suicide lobby is becoming more extreme as Assisted suicide lobby members in New York were arrested for disorderly conduct on Tuesday May 21 as they conducted a civil disobedience protest in the New York Assembly. Clearly the assisted suicide lobby is becoming desperate as assisted suicide Bill A995 and S2445 does not have the necessary support to bring it to a vote.

A recent New York Times article by Erin Nolan and Grace Ashford stated that:

Roughly a decade has passed since the first medical aid in dying bill was introduced in Albany, and it has yet to reach the floor for a vote.

But the proposal has gained momentum this year, because of endorsements from groups like the Medical Society of the State of New York, a trade group of roughly 20,000 doctors, and the efforts of activists like Dr. Netherland, who has a Ph.D. in medical sociology and was diagnosed with Stage 4 breast cancer last year.

Colleen Barry in NY

Some of the concerns of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition were acknowledged by Nolan and Ashord:

Opponents worry that some patients might choose to end their lives based on an inaccurate prognosis or after being pressured to do so. And while the current bill is restricted to terminally ill people, they worry that lawmakers could expand eligibility for medical aid in dying after any initial legislation is passed.

“Even if there is just one case of abuse or coercion, or even if there is just one mistake, that is a dead person,” said Colleen Barry, a nurse and board member of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA.

Nolan and Ashford recognize that the American Medical Association opposes assisted suicide and defines it as “​​fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer.” but the article, which is supportive of assisted suicide, emphasizes that the New York Medical Association has now endorsed the assisted suicide bill.

We knew that the New York assisted suicide lobby was in trouble last December, when Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, who is the sponsor of Assembly Bill A0995 stated on a video (starting at 18:40) that 'they need to get the assisted suicide bill passed first and then amend it later.'

Paulin, who has sponsored the New York assisted suicide bill since 2016, crafted the assisted suicide bill to appear to be tighter than previous bills. She acknowledges that once legalized she will push to have the legislation expanded.

Nearly every state that has legalized assisted suicide have also expanded their legislation.

EPC continues to actively oppose assisted suicide in New York.

American Medical Association retains opposition to assisted suicide

This article was published by National Review online on Nov 14, 2023.

By Wesley J Smith

Wesley Smith

I am a frequent critic of the medical establishment. But not this time. It didn’t make much news, but the American Medical Association had another vote to repeal its existing policy against assisted suicide, and for the fourth time — good on them — the delegates refused to budge.

The current policy remains in place, which states in part:

Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.

Euthanasia could readily be extended to incompetent patients and other vulnerable populations.

The involvement of physicians in euthanasia heightens the significance of its ethical prohibition. The physician who performs euthanasia assumes unique responsibility for the act of ending the patient’s life.

Instead of engaging in euthanasia, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life. Physicians:
(a) Should not abandon a patient once it is determined that a cure is impossible.
(b) Must respect patient autonomy.
(c) Must provide good communication and emotional support.
(d) Must provide appropriate comfort care and adequate pain control.

The AMA also refused to change the descriptive and accurate term “assisted suicide” to the euphemistic “medical aid in dying.”

Article: American Medical Association maintains opposition to assisted suicide (Link). 

American Medical Association maintains opposition to assisted suicide

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Great news: The American Medical Association (AMA) upheld their opposition to assisted suicide and euthanasia.

This is a huge win as AMA delegates voted down the attempt to change the code of ethics to support or become neutral on assisted suicide and they voted down the attempt to change terminology from assisted suicide to Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD). 

The take home message is that medical professionals, young physicians and medical students must be involved in the AMA.

On October 10, the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) were the first group to report that the AMA would be debating their policies on assisted suicide and euthanasia at the AMA House of Delegates interim meeting in Maryland (November 10 - 14, 2023).

50 draft resolutions were proposed with two of the draft resolutions dealing with assisted suicide and euthanasia.

• Resolution 4 proposed to change the position of the AMA from opposition to supporting (Resolution Link).
• Resolution 5 was for the AMA to adopt a neutral stance. (Resolution Link).

Resolution 4 would have  removed the AMA statement on not performing euthanasia or participating in assisted suicide. Both resolutions proposed to change the terminology from Physician-Assisted Suicide to Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD). The term Medical Aid in Dying includes assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Thank you to the many medical professionals who responded to the alert and worked to defeat Resolutions 4 and 5.

American Medical Association (AMA) is debating assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The American Medical Association Policy 5.7 on assisted suicide currently states:

Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.

Instead of engaging in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life.

Physicians:

• Should not abandon a patient once it is determined that cure is impossible.
• Must respe∘ct patient autonomy.
• Must provide good communication and emotional support.
• Must provide appropriate comfort care and adequate pain control.

At the Interim meeting of the AMA House of Delegates on November 10 - 14, 2023 in Maryland, 50 draft resolutions will be debated. Two of the draft resolutions will concern assisted suicide and euthanasia.

• Resolution 4 is to change the position of the AMA on Medical Aid in Dying (Resolution Link).
• Resolution 5 is for the AMA to adopt a neutral stance on Medical Aid in Dying (Resolution Link).

It is important to note that Resolution 4 would remove the AMA statement on not performing euthanasia or participating in assisted suicide:

Physicians must not perform euthanasia or participate in assisted suicide. A more careful examination of the issue is necessary. Support, comfort, respect for patient autonomy, good communication, and adequate pain control may decrease dramatically the public demand for euthanasia and assisted suicide. In certain carefully defined circumstances, it would be humane to recognize that death is certain and suffering is great. However, the societal risks of involving physicians in medical interventions to cause patients' deaths is too great in this culture to condone euthanasia or physician- assisted suicide at this time.

Both resolutions use the term Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) rather than Physician Assisted Suicide. The term Medical Aid in Dying is not limited to assisted suicide, it also includes euthanasia. The assisted suicide lobby wants to legalize euthanasia (medical homicide) in America.

Both resolutions need to be vigorously opposed. The assisted suicide lobby likely introduced both resolutions to create the impression that Resolution 5 (adopting a neutral stance on Medical Aid in Dying) is a compromise resolution, whereas, both resolutions will effectively lead to the same outcome.

Normalizing Organ Harvesting after Euthanasia.

This article was published in the National Review online on May 26, 2021

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

In 1993, my first ever anti-euthanasia column warned in Newsweek that once euthanasia became accepted widely, it would be followed by organ harvesting “as a plum to society.” By now, you know how that story goes. I was accused of alarmism, slippery-slope advocacy, conspiracy theories, etc., etc. And, as these kind of stories nearly always end, it came to be — in Canada, Netherlands, and Belgium, with more likely to follow over time.

Now, organ harvesting after euthanasia has become so normalized within the medical intellegentsia, that an American Medical Association publication, JAMA Surgery, had a letter debate — not about the propriety of killing and harvesting, but about whether the kill should begin at home or in a hospital.

Two doctors say that “organ donation after euthanasia starting at home” (ODEH) is the way to go:

The patient is only sedated at home, which marks the start of euthanasia in legal terms but is medically only intended to remove consciousness while vital functions are maintained and secured. Coma induction and the start of the agonal phase [killing] subsequently take place in the intensive care unit after farewells at home and transportation [to the hospital].

Their debaters says, no, start the homicides in the hospital:

A guideline for ODEH should be developed, including instructions for physicians on how to act if the condition of the patient deteriorates during transport. In the ODEH case presented by Mulder and Sonneveld, noradrena line was given to maintain adequate blood pressure during transport to the hospital. This could be interpreted as violation of an important principle of organ donation after euthanasia, namely that the euthanasia and organ donation should be at all times handled as 2 separate entities.

No one says — don’t do it!

But I will. Some of these patients (in Belgium and Netherlands) are not physically sick, but mentally ill. Believing that their deaths are more valuable than their lives — because of the lives potentially saved by their organs — could easily become the tipping point for some of these anguished patients to decide to be killed. Note: These are people who would otherwise live for years.

In other words, organ donation could be an inducement to euthanasia. That could also be true of disabled patients who are the other prime cadre of ODE targets because they have “good organs.”

Moreover, in Ontario, Canada, the organ donation society is told in advance by doctors of a planned euthanasia, and representatives call the patient/family to ask for their organs! It’s almost out of a Monty Python skit, “Hello, can we have your liver?”

No, of course suicide prevention is not offered! That might get in the way of suffering people agreeing to be transformed into so many natural resources.

Five Reasons to Oppose Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

There are many reasons to oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide (also known as Assisted Death or MAiD). Here we focus on five key reasons. 

(Link to a printable PDF version of this article)

1. Assisted death should be opposed because it involves causing a person’s death (killing).

Laws permitting MAiD give medical practitioners the right to cause a person’s death. Society should never allow one person to legally kill another.

In Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, assisted death is done by euthanasia.

Euthanasia is intentionally injecting a person with a combination of lethal drugs. In most countries euthanasia is prohibited under murder or homicide laws.

In the United States and Switzerland, assisted death is done by assisting a person’s suicide. This is when a doctor prescribes a combination of lethal drugs that the person self-ingests.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide involve another person, usually a doctor, who directly kills or is involved with causing the death of another person.

Those who promote assisted death focus on the difficult life conditions that lead to someone to requesting death. They argue from a situational ethics’ standpoint to justify killing, an act which is normally considered to be universally wrong.

Assisted death is sold as healthcare. In an interview, psychiatrist and ethicist Mark Komrad said:

“If you were just to replace the image of the needle or the pill with a gun, I think that would make a much more vivid picture of something that would be transculturally wrong.”(1)

People go through difficult physical or psychological conditions but these human experiences must not be exploited to justify killing. Providing proper care and support is the appropriate response.

2. Assisted death should be opposed because “safeguards” only protect the medical practitioner; they do not protect vulnerable people.

Assisted death laws are designed to protect the medical practitioner who is willing to cause death. These laws do not provide effective oversight and protection for the person who is being killed. These “safeguards” are designed to sell the legalization of assisted death to politicians who have concerns about killing, but they include exceptions that are wide enough to drive a hearse through.

The State of Oregon was the first jurisdiction to legalize assisted death in 1997.(2) The assisted suicide lobby did not reduce the safeguards in the law because they wanted to convince other jurisdictions that there is no “slippery slope”. However, in 2019, the assisted suicide lobby announced that the problem with assisted suicide laws is the restrictions. That year the Oregon legislature removed the 15-day waiting period.(3)
 
The euthanasia lobby alleges that the Netherlands have not changed their euthanasia law since it was passed in 2002. This is inaccurate: the language of the Netherlands’ euthanasia law has not changed but the interpretation of the law has changed. The most recent example is the extension of euthanasia to include incompetent people with dementia.(4)

Canada is a prime example of a country where safeguards lack effective definition or meaning. For instance, Canada’s euthanasia law required that a person’s “natural death be reasonably foreseeable”. However, the meaning of this phrase was not defined(5) and, consequently, the application of the law varied. In September 2019, a Québec Superior Court decision struck this requirement from the law.(6)

Canada is also a prime example of how a euthanasia law incrementally expands. Canada passed its assisted death law in June 2016. In February 2020, Parliament introduced Bill C-7 to expand the law by eliminating the waiting period, permitting euthanasia of an incompetent person who requested an assisted death in advance, and eliminating the terminal illness requirement.(7)

Safeguards in assisted death laws are designed to politically sell killing. These laws protect medical practitioners who are willing to kill; they do not protect those who die from the lethal drugs. 

3. Assisted death should be opposed because it is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer.
 
The American Medical Association Code of Ethics Opinion 5.7 (Physician-Assisted Suicide) states that:

…permitting physicians to engage in assisted suicide would ultimately cause more harm than good.

Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.

Instead of engaging in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life.(8)

Assisted death laws are designed to protect medical practitioners who are willing to cause the death of a patient. When the role of a physician changes from healer to killer, it fundamentally changes the physician.

In August 2016, 25-year-old Candice Lewis, who had several medical conditions, was pressured by a doctor to “request” an assisted death while she was in the hospital. Candice’s mother Sheila Elson stated in a CBC News story:

“His words were ‘assisted suicide death was legal in Canada,’” she told CBC. “I was shocked, and said, ‘Well, I’m not really interested,’ and he told me I was being selfish.” 

According to Elson, Lewis was within earshot when the doctor made the comment – which she said was quite traumatic for her daughter to hear.(9)

Sheila said the following in the film Fatal Flaws:

Not once did Candice say to them, “I want to end my life.” The doctor came in the next day after he told me about assisted suicide, stuck his face down in Candice’s and said, “Do you know how sick you are?” When I got his eye contact, we went out in the hallway and I told him, “Don’t you ever pull something like that again.”(10)

The fact that Candice was a person with disabilities should not change the value of her life. How many people are pressured by a medical professional and, unlike Candice, die by assisted death? 

4. Assisted death should be opposed because doctors are fallible; they can make medical errors and misdiagnose conditions.
 
In his article, “Why Getting Medically Misdiagnosed Is More Common Than You May Think,” Brian Mastroianni states that 12 million Americans are affected by medical diagnostic errors each year and an estimated 40,000 to 80,000 people die annually from complications related to misdiagnoses, with a similar number of people experiencing a permanent disability related to misdiagnosis.(11)
 
In April 2013, Pietro D’Amico, a 62-year-old magistrate from Calabria, Italy, died by assisted suicide at a Swiss assisted suicide clinic. His autopsy revealed that he had been medically misdiagnosed.(12)
 
Assisted death is a permanent decision often done when a person fears a painful or difficult death or is experiencing depression or feelings of hopelessness. Once they are dead, it is too late to learn that they were misdiagnosed or living with a treatable condition.

5. Assisted death laws should be opposed because legalization pressures physicians who then pressure patients.
 
What begins as a choice to kill or to die becomes a pressure to kill and a pressure to die.
 
During the debate to legalize euthanasia in Canada the euthanasia lobby argued that the issue was about choice. The “freedom of choice”: to die by euthanasia, and for a doctor or nurse practitioner to participate.
 
Sadly, Candice Lewis’ story may not be rare.
 
In February 2018, less than two years after Canada legalized assisted death the Delta Hospice Society (DHS), an independent charitable organization in British Columbia (BC), was ordered by the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) to provide euthanasia.(13) The DHS resisted and continued its good work. In December 2019, the FHA ordered the DHS to provide euthanasia or lose their government funding.(14) The DHS refused to comply with the government’s edict saying that, 

“MAiD is not compatible with the DHS’s purposes stated in the society’s constitution, and therefore, will not be performed at the Irene Thomas Hospice.”(15)

The Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association and the Canadian Society of Palliative Physicians sent the BC Minister of Health a joint statement saying, 

“…MAiD is not part of hospice palliative care; it is not an ‘extension’ of palliative care nor is it one of the tools ‘in the palliative care basket’”(16) 

The BC Minister of Health responded by ordering the DHS to comply or be taken over by the province in February 2021.(17)
 
Recent assisted suicide bills in the United States have included a “do or refer” provision.(18) This means that if assisted suicide is legalized, a doctor would not have to prescribe assisted suicide drugs; however, if they received a request for assisted suicide, they would be required to refer the patient to someone who will write the prescription.

Doctors in Ontario Canada have been ordered by the College of Physicians and Surgeons to do an “effective referral”. This means that the College can punish doctors who refuse to kill and refuse to refer their patients to a doctor who will kill.(19)
 
Advocates of assisted death use the term “freedom of choice” to promote their ideology. This campaign slogan has resulted in medically condoned killing, persuasive pressure to die and an edict to kill by some medical organizations is a central part of a cultural campaign to normalize killing.
 
Society must maintain and build on its commitment to caring, not killing.

(Link to a printable PDF version of this article)

Endnotes
1. Dunn, K. (Director). (2018). Fatal Flaws: Legalizing Assisted Death. DunnMedia & Entertainment. [Trailer]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89YQubAyRrI (Dr. Komrad’s statements start at 0:27)
2. Norman-Eady, S. (2002). Office of Legislative Research (OLR) Research Report: Oregon’s Assisted Suicide Law (Report No. 2002-R-0077). Connecticut General Assembly. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-r-0077.htm
3. Callinan, K. (2019, January 1). End-of-Life option laws should avoid needless red tape. McKnight’s LTC News. https://www.mcknights.com/blogs/guest-columns/end-of-life-option-laws-need-compassion/
4. Pieters, J. (2020, April 21). Euthanasia Allowed for Dementia Patients Who Gave Prior Consent: Supreme Court. Netherlands Times. https://nltimes.nl/2020/04/21/euthanasia-allowed-dementia-patients-gave-prior-consent-supremecourt
5. Schadenberg, A. (2016, June 17). Canadian Senate passes euthanasia bill in time for summer break. Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Blog. https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2016/06/canadas-senate-passes-euthanasia-bill.html
6. Marin, S. (2019, September 11). A Quebec court has invalidated parts of the medical aid in dying laws. The Canadian Press. https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/a-quebec-court-has-invalidated-parts-of-the-medical-aid-in-dying-laws-1.4588622
7. Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), First Session, Forty-third Parliament, 68-69 Elizabeth II, 2019-2020. https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-1/bill/C-7/first-reading
8. Chapter 5: Opinions on Caring for Patients at the End of Life. American Medical Association (AMA) Code of Medical Ethics. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-06/code-of-medical-ethics-chapter-5.pdf
9. Bartlett, G. (2017, July 24). Mother says doctor brought up assisted suicide option as sick daughter was within earshot. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/doctor-suggested-assisted-suicide-daughter-mother-elson-1.4218669
10. Dunn, K. (Director). (2018). Fatal Flaws Film Clip: “They wanted me to do an assisted suicide death on her.” [Video file]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB6zt43iCs8
11. Mastroianni, B. (2020, February 22). Why Getting Medically Misdiagnosed Is More Common Than You May Think. Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/healthnews/many-people-experience-getting-misdiagnosed
12. Aided suicide in question after botched diagnosis. (2013, July 11). The Local. https://www.thelocal.ch/20130711/assisted-suicide-in-question-after-botched-diagnosis
13. Fayerman, P. (2018, February 6). Delta hospice rebels against Fraser Health’s mandate to provide medical assistance in dying. Vancouver Sun. https://vancouversun.co/news/local-news/delta-hospice-rebels-against-fraser-healths-mandate-to-provide-medical-assistance-in-dying/
14. Gyarmati, S. (2019, December 7). Fraser Health gives Delta Hospice ‘formal notice of concerns’. Delta Optimist. https://www.delta-optimist.com/news/fraser-health-gives-delta-hospice-formal-notice-of-concerns-1.24029942
15. New Delta Hospice Society board reverses MAiD position. (2019, December 2). Delta Optimist. https://www.deltaoptimist.com/news/new-delta-hospice-society-board-reverses-maid-position-1.24024999
16. Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association (CHPCA) and Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP) Joint Call to Action. (2019, November 27). https://www.chpca.ca/news/chpca-and-cspcp-joint-call-to-action/
17. Gyarmati, S. (2019, December 24). Here’s the deadline given to Delta Hospice. Delta Optimist. https://www.delta-optimist.com/news/here-s-the-deadline-given-to-delta-hospice-1.24041440
18. Murphy, S. (Administrator). (2020, January 14). Indiana assisted suicide bill fails to protect objecting practitioners: Assisted suicide evolves from “assistance” to “medical care”. Protection of Conscience Project. https://www. consciencelaws.org/law/commentary/legal102.aspx
19. Advice to the Profession: Professional Obligations and Human Rights. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO). https://www.cpso.on.ca/Physicians/Policies-Guidance/Policies/Professional-Obligations-and-Human-Rights/Advice-to-the-Profession-Professional-Obligations

Reject Massachusetts End of Life Option Act

This article written by Margaret Dore and published by Choice is an Illusion.

Sign the petition: Reject Massachusetts Assisted Suicide bill S.1208/H.1926. (Link).

There has been an amended assisted suicide bill introduced in Massachusetts. S.2745 / S.1208.

I. Introduction

I am an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.[1] The proposed bills seek to legalize “aid in dying,” a traditional euphemism for active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.[2]

Most states reject these practices.[3] Other states have strengthened their laws against them.[4] If enacted, the bills will apply to people with years or decades to live. Individuals with money, meaning the middle class and above, will be especially at risk. I urge you to reject the proposed bills.

II. Definitions (Traditional)

A. Physician-Assisted Suicide, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

The American Medical Association defines physician-suicide as occurring when “a physician facilitates a patient’s death by providing the necessary means and/or information to enable the patient to perform the life-ending act.”[5] For example:

[T]he physician provides sleeping pills and information about the lethal dose, while aware that the patient may commit suicide.[6] Assisted suicide is a general term in which an assisting person is not necessarily a physician. Euthanasia is the administration of a lethal agent by another person.[7]

B. Withholding or Withdrawing Treatment

Withholding or withdrawing treatment (“pulling the plug”) is not euthanasia if the purpose is to remove burdensome treatment, as opposed to an intent to kill the patient. More importantly, the individual will not necessarily die. Consider this quote from Washington State regarding a man removed from a ventilator:

[I]nstead of dying as expected, [he] slowly began to get better.[8] 

III. Assisting Persons Can Have an Agenda

Persons assisting a suicide or euthanasia can have an agenda. Consider Tammy Sawyer, trustee for Thomas Middleton in Oregon. Two days after his death by legal assisted suicide, she sold his home and deposited the proceeds into bank accounts for her own benefit.[9] Consider also Graham Morant, convicted of counseling his wife to kill herself in Australia, to get the life insurance.[10] The Court found:

[Y]ou counselled and aided your wife to kill herself because you wanted ... the 1.4 million.[11] Medical professionals too can have an agenda. New York physician, Michael Swango, got a thrill from killing his patients.[12] Consider also Harold Shipman, a doctor in the UK, who not only killed his patients, but stole from them and in one case made himself a beneficiary of the patient’s will.[13]

IV. Patients will have Years or Decades to Live

The bills apply to persons who are “terminally ill,” which is defined as an illness or condition expected to cause death within six months.[14] Such persons may in fact have years or decades to live. This is true due to actual mistakes (the test results got switched) and because predicting life expectancy is not an exact science.[15]

Indeed, doctors can sometimes be very wrong. Consider John Norton, who testified before this body in 2012. Diagnosed with ALS at age 18, he was told that he would get progressively worse (be paralyzed) and die in three to five years.[16] Instead, the disease progression stopped on its own. His affidavit states:

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.[17] 

V. How The Bills Work

The bills have an application process to obtain the lethal dose, which includes a lethal dose request form. Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight. No doctor, not even a witness, is required to be present at the death.[18]

VI. The Bills are Stacked Against the Individual

Proponents claim that bill passage will assure individual choice, which is not true. See below.

A. Patient Protections will not be Enforceable

The bills set forth multiple patient protections, for example, that the attending physician “shall” refer the patient to another physician prior to prescribing the lethal dose.[19] The bills also say that actions are to be carried out in “accordance” with the bills.[20]

The bills do not define “accordance.”[21] Dictionary definitions include “in the spirit of,” meaning in thought or intention.[22] In other words, a mere thought or intention to comply is good enough. The protections will not be enforceable.

B. The Bills will Allow Other People to Communicate on the Patient’s Behalf
.
The bills describe patients as being “capable.”[23] This is a specially defined term, in which other people will be allowed to communicate on the patient’s behalf during the lethal dose request process, as long as the communicating people are “familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating.” The bills state:

"Capable” means having the capacity to make informed, complex health care decisions; understand the consequences of those decisions; and to communicate them to health care providers, including communication through individuals familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating if those persons are available. (Emphasis added).[24]

 Being familiar with a patient’s manner of communicating is an extremely low standard for something so important. Consider, for example, a doctor’s assistant who is familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating in Spanish, but she, herself, does not understand Spanish. That, however, would be good enough for her to communicate on his behalf during the lethal dose request process. The patient would not be in control of his fate.

C. “Even if the Patient Struggled, Who Would Know?”

The bills have no required oversight over administration of the lethal dose.[25] In addition, the drugs used are water and alcohol soluble, such that they can be injected into a sleeping or restrained person without consent.[26] Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, puts it this way:

With assisted suicide laws in Washington and Oregon [and with the proposed bills], perpetrators can . . . take a “legal” route, by getting an elder to sign a lethal dose request. Once the prescription is filled, there is no supervision over administration. Even if a patient struggled, “who would know?” (Emphasis added).[27] 

VII. The Bills Will Allow Euthanasia as Traditionally Defined

The bills state that patients may choose to “self-administer” the lethal dose.[28] This is a specially defined term, which paradoxically allows other people to administer the lethal dose to the patient. The bills state:

"Self-administer” means a qualified patient’s act of ingesting medication [the lethal dose] ....(Emphasis added)[29] 

The bills do not define “ingest.”[30] Dictionary definitions include:

[T]o take (food, drugs, etc.) into the body, as by swallowing, inhaling, or absorbing.” (Emphasis added).[31] 

With these definitions, someone else putting the lethal dose in a patient’s mouth qualifies as self-administration if the patient swallows the lethal dose, i.e., ingests it. Someone else placing a medication patch on the patient’s arm will similarly qualify as self-administration because the patient will then be “absorbing” the dose, i.e., “ingesting” it. Gas administration initiated by another person will also qualify because the patient will be “inhaling” the dose, i.e., ingesting it. With self-administer defined as mere ingesting, someone else is allowed to administer the lethal dose to the patient, which is euthanasia as traditionally defined.

VIII. Legally, Deaths Will Be Due to a Terminal Disease, not Euthanasia or Homicide

The bills require deaths via the lethal dose to be listed on the patient’s death certificate as caused by a terminal disease, not euthanasia or homicide. The bills state:

The attending physician may sign the patient’s death certificate which shall list the underling terminal disease as the cause of death. (Emphasis added).[32]
[and]

Actions taken by health care providers and patient advocates supporting a qualified patient exercising his or her rights pursuant to this chapter, including being present when the patient self-administers medication, shall not for any purpose, constitute elder abuse, neglect, assisted suicide, mercy killing [euthanasia] or homicide under any civil or criminal law or for purposes of professional disciplinary action. (Emphasis added).[33] 

IX. Death Certificates Will Report Deaths as “Natural”

Massachusetts’ death certificates have seven categories for reporting the manner of death, five of which are substantive: natural cause; accident; homicide; suicide and therapeutic complication.[34]

As noted in the previous section, euthanasia deaths will be reported as caused by a terminal disease, not euthanasia or homicide. The death is also not an accident due its being intentionally performed; it is not suicide due to it’s being performed by another person; it is not a therapeutic complication. This leaves “Natural.”

With this situation, the manner of death for a traditional euthanasia must be reported on the death certificate as Natural. The significance is that doing so will create a legal inability to prosecute for murder. The official legal manner of death will be natural, not homicide, as a matter of law. The bills will create a perfect crime.

X. Dr. Shipman and the Call for Death Certificate Reform

Per a 2005 article in the UK’s The Guardian newspaper, there was a public inquiry regarding Dr. Shipman’s conduct, which determined that he had “killed at least 250 of his patients over 23 years.”[35] The inquiry also found:

that by issuing death certificates stating natural causes, the serial killer [Shipman] was able to evade investigation by coroners.[36] Per a subsequent article in 2015, proposed reforms included having a medical examiner review death certificates, so as to improve patient safety.[37] Instead, the instant bills move in the opposite direction to require a legal coverup in which doctors and other perpetrators will be empowered to kill with impunity.

XI. Perpetrators will be Allowed to Inherit

Slayer statutes block persons from receiving an inheritance when they murder a person from whom they stand to inherit.”[38] The rational is simple.[39] No one should financially benefit from his or her own crime.”[40]

In Massachusetts, the slayer statute applies when there is a murder conviction for homicide. Actions taken pursuant to the bills, however, are not homicide.[41] Again, the bills state:

Actions taken by health care providers and patient advocates supporting a qualified patient exercising his or her rights pursuant to this chapter, including being present when the patient self-administers medication, shall not for any purpose, constitute elder abuse, neglect, assisted suicide, mercy killing [euthanasia] or homicide under any civil or criminal law or for purposes of professional disciplinary action. (Emphasis added).[42]

With this situation, the slayer statute will not apply to deaths pursuant to the bills because legally there will be no homicide, and therefore no murder. It won’t matter that the lethal dose was administered to the decedent against his or her will or that he or she was tricked into taking it. Perpetrators will be allowed to inherit.

XII. Participants will be Traumatized

A. The Swiss Study: Physician-Assisted Suicide can be Traumatic for Family Members

A European research study addressed trauma suffered by persons who witnessed legal physician-assisted suicide in Switzerland.[43] The study found that one out of five family members or friends present at an assisted suicide was traumatized. These people, 

experienced full or sub-threshold PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder] related to the loss of a close person through assisted suicide.[44] 

B. My Clients Suffered Trauma in Oregon and Washington State

I have had two cases where my clients and their family members suffered severe emotional trauma due to legal assisted suicide. One case was in Oregon, the other case was in Washington State.

In the first case, one side of the family wanted the father/patient to take the lethal dose, while the other side did not. The father spent the last months of his life caught in the middle and torn over whether or not he should kill himself. My client, his adult daughter, was severely traumatized. The father did not take the lethal dose and died a natural death.

In the other case, it’s not clear that administration of the lethal dose was voluntary. My client, although he was not present, was severely affected by the incident and also by the sudden loss of his father.

XII. Conclusion

If enacted, the bills will apply to people with years or decades to live. Some assisting persons, including doctors and family members, will have an agenda, with the more obvious reasons being inheritance and life insurance, but also, as in the case of Dr. Swango, the thrill of seeing someone die.

The bills’ lack of required oversight at the death, coupled with the mandatory falsification of the death certificate will provide cover for murder and create a perfect crime. Families and individuals will be traumatized.

I urge you to vote “No” on H. 1926 and S. 1208. 

Click here to view pdf version.
 
Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA
Law Offices of Margaret K Dore, P.S.
Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation
www.margaretdore.com
www.choiceillusion.org
Footnotes:

[1] A copy of my bio is in the appendix, at page A-1.
[2] Craig A. Brandt, Model Aid-in-Dying Act, Iowa Law Review,
1989 Oct; 75(1): 125-215, (“Subject: Active Euthanasia ....”); and
Maria T. CeloCruz, “Aid-in-Dying: Should We Decriminalize
Physician-Assisted Suicide and Physician-Committed Euthanasia?,”
summary pages, in the appendix, at A-2 & A-2A.
[3] Patient’s Rights Council, “Assisted Suicide Laws in the United States,”
http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/assisted-suicide-state-laws/
[4] In the last nine years, at least eight states have strengthened their laws against assisted suicide and/or euthanasia. These states include: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio and Utah. See backup documentation in in the appendix, at pages A-3 to A-7. See also https://www.choiceillusionnewmexico.org/2016/07/new-mexico-upholds-assisted-suicide.html (regarding a New Mexico Supreme Court decision overruling legal assisted suicide); http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3795 (regarding Ohio’s statute) and https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/HB0086.html (regarding Utah bill).
[5] The AMA Code of Medical Ethics, Opinion 5.7, in the appendix, page A-8.
[6] Id.
[7] Opinion 5.8, “Euthanasia,” attached in the appendix, at page A-9.
[8] Nina Shapiro, “Terminal Uncertainty: Washington’s new ‘Death With Dignity’ law allows doctors to help people commit suicide—once they’ve determined that the patient has only six months to live. But what if they’re wrong?,” Seattle Weekly, 01/13/09, attached in the appendix, at pp. A-10 to A-12; quote at A-12.
[9] "Sawyer Arraigned on State Fraud Charges," KTVZ.COM, 08/16/16, attached in the in the appendix, at page A-13.
[10] R v Morant [2018] QSC 251, Order, 11/02/18, excerpts in the appendix, at pp. A-14 and A-15. Full opinion available here: https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2018/QSC18-251.pdf
[11] Morant opinion, ¶ 78, attached in the appendix, at A-15.
[12] Charlie Leduff, “Prosecutors Say Doctor Killed to Feel a Thrill,” The New York Times, 09/07/00, attached in the appendix, at pages A-16 to A-18, https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/ny-times-killed-to-feel-a-thrill-1.pdf (“Basically, Dr. Swango liked to kill people. By his own admission in his diary, he killed because it thrilled him.”) See also: CBSNEWS.COM STAFF, “Life in Jail for Poison Doctor,” 07/12/00, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/life-in-jail-for-poison-doctor
[13] David Batty, “Q & A: Harold Shipman,” The Guardian, 08/25/05, at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/aug/25/health.shipman. (Attached in the appendix, at A-19 to A-21). See also Fiona Guy, “Healthcare Serial Killers: Doctors and Nurses Who Kill,” Crime Traveler, (2015, Sept 09), available at https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/doctors-and-nurses-who-kill.pdf
[14] The bills state:
“Terminally ill" means having a terminal illness or condition which can reasonably be expected to cause death within 6 months, whether or not treatment is provided. H. 1926 and S. 1208, lines 78 to 79. A copy of H. 1926 is in the appendix, at pages A-22 to A-38.
[15] See: Jessica Firger, “12 Million Americans Misdiagnosed Each Year,” CBS NEWS, April 17, 2014, attached in the appendix, at A-39; and Nina Shapiro, “Terminal Uncertainty ...,” supra, excerpts attached hereto in the appendix, at A-10 to A-12.
[16] Affidavit of John Norton, attached in the appendix, at A-40 to A-42.
[17] Id., ¶ 5.
[18] See the bills in their entirety, which are currently identical. Bill H. 1926 is attached in in the appendix, at pages A-22 to A-38.
[19] The bills, § 6, lines 151 to 179, attached in in the appendix, at A-30 & A-31.
[20] The bills state:
(1) The attending physician shall: ...
(k) ensure that all appropriate steps are carried out in accordance with this chapter before writing a prescription for medication for a qualified patient .... (Emphasis added). The bills, line 152, and lines 178 to 179, attached in the appendix, at A-30 and A-31.
[21] See the bills in their entirety.
[22] Definitions attached in the appendix, at pages A-45 to A-46.
[23] The bills, § 1, lines 14-17. (Attached in the appendix, at A-23).
[24] Id.
[25] See the bills in their entirety.
[26] In Oregon and Washington State, reported drugs include Secobarbital, Pentobarbital, Phenobarbital and Morphine Sulfate, which are water and/or alcohol soluble. See excerpts from Oregon’s and Washington’s annual reports, in in the appendix, at pp. A-43 and A-44. See also http://www.drugs.com/pr/seconal-sodium.html, http://www.drugs.com/pro/nembutal.html and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2977013
[27] Alex Schadenberg, Letter to the Editor, “Elder abuse a growing problem,” The Advocate, Official Publication of the Idaho State Bar, October 2010.
[28] The bills, Section 1, line 10, attached in the appendix, at A-22
[29] Id., lines 76 to 77.
[30] See the bills in their entirety.
[31] Attached in the appendix, at A-47.
[32] The bills, §6(2), lines 189 to 190, attached in the appendix, at A-32.
[33] The bills, lines 252 to 256.
[34] See Massachusetts “Death Certificate Medical Certifier Worksheet,” attached in the appendix, at A-48.
[35] David Batty, attached in the appendix, at A-19.
[36] Id., attached hereto at A-21.
[37] Press Association, “Death Certificate Reform Delays ‘Incomprehensible,” The Guardian, January 21, 2015, attached in the appendix, at A-49 to A-50.
[38] Cushing and Dolan, PC, Attorneys at Law, “What are Slayer Statutes,” January 28, 2015, in the appendix, at A-51 to A-52.
[39] Ilene S. Cooper and Jaclene D’Agostino, Forfeiture and New York’s “Slayer Rule,” NYSBA Journal, March/April 2015, attached in the appendix, at A-55.
[40] Id.
[41] Cushing and Dolan, in the appendix, at A-52. See also “Taking from deceased victim’s estate prohibited,” attached in the appendix, at A-53. The bar to inheritance applies “only to murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree or manslaughter.”
[42] The bills, lines 252 to 256.
[43] “Death by request in Switzerland: Post-traumatic stress disorder and complicated grief after witnessing assisted suicide,” B. Wagner, J. Muller, A. Maercker; European Psychiatry 27 (2012) 542-546, available at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/family-members-traumatized-eur-psych-2012.pdf (Cover page attached in the appendix, at A-56).
[44] Id.