New Mexico poised to legalize assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Associated Press reported that New Mexico's Senate passed an amended version of assisted suicide Bill HB 47 by a vote of 24 to 17. HB 47 had passed in the House, without amendments, by a vote of 39 to 27. The bill will go back to the House for a vote on the Senate amendments.

Deborah Armstrong (D) who sponsored HB 47 also sponsored the two previous assisted suicide bills.

Senator Joseph Cervantes sponsored amendments to HB 47 that passed. The amendments:

1. Deleted Section 7 which required falsification of the death certificate.
2. Deleted Section 8 which allowed life insurance or annuities to be collected.
3. Eliminated civil immunity from Section 9 for prescribers of lethal drugs.
4. Eliminated a provision which opened health care facilities to liability if they prohibit employees from participating in assisted suicides.

I was frustrated when presenting to the New Mexico legislative committee on HB-47. The "expert" witnesses claimed that HB 47 is one of the tightest assisted suicide bills anywhere. In reality HB 47 is the widest assisted suicide bill in America.

All current assisted suicide laws require physicians to approve and prescribe lethal drugs. HB 47 allows non-physicians defined as "health care providers" which includes physicians, or licensed physician assistants, or osteopathic physicians, or nurses registered in advanced practice to approve or prescribe lethal drugs.

All current assisted suicide laws require a psychologist or psychiatrist to counsel a person, when a "health care provider" questions the ability of a person to consent. HB 47 defines counselors as: state-licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, master social worker, psychiatric nurse practitioner or professional clinical mental health counselor.

Unlike existing assisted suicide legislation, HB 47 does not require a 15 day waiting period but only requires a 48 hour waiting period that can be waived if the health care provider believes that the person may be imminently dying. Therefore HB 47 technically allows a same day death. A person could request assisted suicide on a "bad day" and die the same day. Studies prove that the “will to live” fluctuates.

HB 47 Section 3 (G) waives the requirement that a person's condition be confirmed by a second health care provider if the person requesting assisted suicide is enrolled in a hospice program. This is the only assisted suicide bill that waives the requirement that a second health care provider assess the requester.

They expert witnesses also claimed that HB 47 had iron clad conscience protections for health care providers. The reality is that HB 47 trampled on conscience rights.

HB 47 states that health care providers who are unwilling to carry out a request for assisted suicide shall inform the individual and refer the individual to a health care provider who is able and willing to carry out the individual's request or to another individual or entity to assist the requesting individual in seeking medical aid in dying.

Therefore a conscientious objector must participate in the act by referring the patient for assisted suicide to a health care provider who is willing to prescribe lethal drugs.

In 2019 Deborah Armstrong, sponsored assisted suicide bill, HB 90, which I called the most extreme assisted suicide bill in America. Among other concerns, HB 90 allowed assisted suicide for psychiatric conditions, to be done to someone with an undefined "terminal prognosis," to be done by nurses and physician assistants, and it even allowed it to be approved via telemedicine.

The amended bill will likely pass in the House. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has stated that she will sign the bill into law.

New Mexico legislature will once again debate an extreme assisted suicide bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Deborah Armstrong (D) who sponsored two previous New Mexico assisted suicide bills has once again sponsored an assisted suicide bill. House Bill 47, which is also known as the Elizabeth Whitefield End-of-Life Options Act, is her latest assisted suicide bill.

Armstrong's 2019 assisted suicide bill, HB 90, was the most extreme US assisted suicide bill that I had seen. Among other concerns, the bill allowed assisted suicide for psychiatric conditions, to be done to someone with an undefined "terminal prognosis," to be done by nurses and physician assistants, and it even allowed it to be approved via tele-medicine.

Similar to previous years, the New Mexico assisted suicide bill is wider than existing assisted suicide legislation.

Similar to HB 90, HB 47 expands who can approve and prescribe lethal drugs from physicians to "health care providers" that include physicians, or licensed physician assistants, or osteopathic physicians, or nurses registered in advanced practice.

Compared to existing assisted suicide legislation, HB 47 expands the list of who can approve and prescribe lethal drugs which not only increases the availability of assisted suicide but enables lesser trained health care providers to approve and prescribe assisted suicide.

HB 47 also expands the list of who may counsel a person, when a "health care provider" questions the ability of a person to consent. HB 47 permitted counselors to include: state-licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, master social worker, psychiatric nurse practitioner or professional clinical mental health counselor.

Unlike existing assisted suicide legislation, HB 47 does not require a 15 day waiting period but only requires a 48 hour waiting period that can be waived if the health care provider believes that the person may be imminently dying. Therefore HB 47 technically allows a same day death. A person could request assisted suicide on a "bad day" and die the same day. Studies prove that the “will to live” fluctuates.

Unlike existing assisted suicide legislation, HB 47 Section 3 (G) waives the requirement that a person's condition be confirmed by a second health care provider if the person requesting assisted suicide is enrolled in a hospice program.

The hospice provision is confirmed by assisted suicide promoter, Thaddeus Pope who stated:

the EWEOLOA does not require confirmation from a (second) consulting clinician if the prescribing clinician affirms that the individual is enrolled in a Medicare certified hospice program.

HB 47 tramples on the conscience rights of health care providers. The bill states that health care providers who are unwilling to carry out a request for assisted suicide shall inform the individual and refer the individual to a health care provider who is able and willing to carry out the individual's request or to another individual or entity to assist the requesting individual in seeking medical aid in dying.

Therefore a conscientious objector must participate in the act by referring the patient to a health care provider who is willing to prescribe lethal drugs.

Deborah Armstrong is intent on legalizing one of the widest assisted suicide bills for New Mexico.

HB 47 allows lesser trained health care providers to prescribe lethal drugs for the purpose of assisting a suicide, a life and death decision. The bill also allows a same day death and all based on "good faith" which is the lowest level of oversight.

For those who are organizing to stop assisted suicide in New Mexico I suggest the following: 

• Refer to assisted suicide, and stay away from politically motivated language. 
• Focus on how assisted suicide is done. The assisted suicide lobby is experimenting with new drug combinations as they attempt to find cheaper lethal drug cocktails.
• Assisted suicide bills are not what they appear to be. Focus on what the bill actually says, rather than focusing on the theory of assisted suicide. 
• In 2020, several of the assisted suicide bills permitted euthanasia or used undefined language enabling the legislation to be interpreted in a wider manner, while other bills ignored conscience rights for medical professionals.

Defeating assisted suicide bills requires a complete analysis of the bill, outlining the problems with the bill. All of these bills are designed to expand over time.

Emphasize what assisted suicide is and how it is done and discuss how the assisted suicide lobby is conducting unethical lethal drug experiments. They speak about compassion and choices and yet they have caused some horrific deaths.

Work together. All perspectives are important, but stay focused on your goal, that being, protecting people from assisted suicide.

Bill HB 47 must be defeated.

New Mexico legislators listened, read the assisted suicide bill and opposed it.

This story was published by OneNewsNow on March 14, 2019

Alex Schadenberg

The fate of New Mexico's doctor-assisted suicide bill has been decided for now: legislators listened to their constituents and now the measure is dead.

Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has described HB 90 as the most dangerous physician-assisted suicide bill he had ever seen.

One reason is that is also permits euthanasia, when a doctor takes the life of another person, and he was also concerned about questionable language in the bill and allowing a brief 48-hour waiting period.

“It allowed assisted suicide for mental health conditions,” he warns. “It did not protect physicians’ conscience rights even so they were forced to refer.”

The latest news is that the bill sponsor Deborah Armstrong did not have the votes for passage and asked that it be tabled. And it was.

Schadenberg, who led a session in January to help New Mexico residents oppose the bill, attributes the success to citizen activism in the Land of Enchantment.

Citizens contacted their legislators to alert them to the bill’s language, he says.

But Schadenberg cautions the measure is dead only for now and he predicts it will return.

New Mexico assisted suicide bill (HB 90) was stopped.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

New Mexico legislature.

I have amazing news. 

The New Mexico assisted suicide bill (HB 90) has been tabled. I assessed that HB 90 was the most extreme assisted suicide bill that I had ever seen, and even after it was amended, the language of the bill allowed for euthanasia and enabled the practise of the law to expand.

Yesterday, the Arkansas assisted suicide bill also died.

An article by Robert Nott published in the Sante Fe New Mexican stated:

Though the bill, known as the Elizabeth Whitefield End of Life Options Act, made it through two House committees this year, it was quietly tabled in the House of Representatives in late February.

On Tuesday, Armstrong wrote in an email that the bill was tabled “at my request.”

“At the time we are just a few votes shy to pass the bill,” she said.

Alexandra Snyder (lawyer) speaking on January 26.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition held the Stopping Assisted Suicide in Your State Training Seminar on Friday January 25 and Conference on Saturday January 26 in Albuquerque NM. 

The events featuring world-wide speakers and excellent presentations by Not Dead Yet, Choice is an Illusion and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The Stopping Assisted Suicide in Your State events were well attended by local leaders from many different groups who became focussed on how to defeat the assisted suicide bill. It is very expensive to organize these events but the results are life saving.

We have received several messages from key leaders in New Mexico, and other states asking us to organize similar events.

Thank you to all of the New Mexico citizens and leaders who testified against HB 90 and spoke to State representatives and Senators. The bill was first amended and then tabled.

Coalition building and relationships enable us to focus on defeating the bill together and the result is that we stop assisted suicide in your state.

Vote "No" on New Mexico Euthanasia Act

By Margaret Dore - Choice is an Illusion

1. The Act

The Act (HB 90 as amended, and SB 153) seeks to legalize medical “aid in dying,” a traditional euphemism for active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.[1]

2. Who is Especially at Risk?

Individuals with money, meaning the middle class and above.

3. 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, which has a similar law. Two days after his death by legal assisted suicide, she sold his home and deposited the proceeds into bank accounts for her own benefit.[2] Consider also Graham Morant, recently convicted of counseling his wife to kill herself in Australia, to get the life insurance. The Court found:

[Y]ou counseled and aided your wife to kill herself because you wanted ... the 1.4 million.[3]

Medical professionals too can have an agenda. Michael Swango, MD, now incarcerated, got a thrill from killing his patients.[4] 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.[5]

4. “Even If the Patient Struggled, Who Would Know?”

The Act has no required oversight over administration of the lethal dose, not even a witness is required to be present at the death.[6] The drugs used are water or alcohol soluble, such that they can be injected into a sleeping or restrained person without consent.[7] 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 Act], 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).[8]

5. Cover for Murder

With the lack of witnesses to say otherwise, perpetrators will be able report deaths as “self-administered.” Per the Act, this will require death certificates to list a terminal illness as the cause of death. See the Act, Section 7, “Death Certificate - Cause of Death.” The official legal cause of death will be a terminal illness (not murder) as a matter of law.

6. “Eligible” Persons May Have Years or Decades to Live

The Act applies to persons with a terminal illness, which is expected to result in death “within six months” (HB 90, as amended). Oregon’s law has a similar criteria, which is interpreted to include chronic conditions such as diabetes mellitus, better known as diabetes. This is because the six months to live is determined without treatment. Oregon doctor, William Toffler, explains:

In Oregon, people with chronic conditions are “terminal,” if without their medications, they have less than six months to live. This is significant when you consider that a typical insulin-dependent 20 year-old will live less than a month without insulin.

Such persons, with insulin, are likely to have decades to live; in fact, most diabetics have a normal life span given appropriate control of their blood sugar. [9]

(Link to PDF of this article).

Footnotes

[1] Craig A. Brandt, “Model Aid-in-Dying Act,” Iowa Law Review, 1989 Oct; 75(1): 125-215, (“Subject: Active Euthanasia ....”), at https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/738671 and Maria T. CeloCruz, “Aid-in-Dying: Should We Decriminalize Physician-Assisted Suicide and Physician-Committed Euthanasia?,” American Journal of Law and Medicine 1992 (“Subject: Active Euthanasia ....”) at https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/744116

[2] KTVZ.com, “Sawyer Arraigned on State Fraud Charges,” at https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/sawyer-arraigned-a-63.pdf

[3] R v Morant , 11/02/18, p. 11, ¶ 78, at https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2018/QSC18-251.pdf

[4] Charlie Leduff, “Prosecutors Say Doctor Killed to Feel a Thrill,” The New York Times, 09/07/00 (“Basically, Dr. Swango liked to kill people. By his own admission in his diary, he killed because it thrilled him.”)

[5] David Batty, “Q & A: Harold Shipman,” The Guardian, 08/25/05, at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/aug/25/health.shipman

[6] See HB 90 and SB 153, in their entirety.

[7] In Oregon, the drugs used include Secobarbital, and Pentobarbital (Nembutal) , which are water and alcohol soluble. See http://www.drugs.com/pr/seconal-sodium.html and http://www.drugs.com/pro/nembutal.html

[8] Alex Schadenberg, Letter to the Editor, “Elder abuse a growing problem,” The Advocate, Official Publication of the Idaho State Bar, October 2010

[9] Toffler Declaration, at https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/toffler-decl-new-mexico-01-23-19.pdf

New Mexico's radical assisted suicide bill is part of the new suicide lobby strategy.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

New Mexico legislature

New Mexico's assisted suicide Bill HB 90, is the most extreme assisted suicide bill I have ever seen. 

After reading HB 90 I asked the question: Is the assisted suicide lobby behind HB 90 or is the author of the bill, Deborah Armstrong (Dem) more radical?

Jennifer Graham, writing for the Deseret News asks Kim Callinan, the CEO of  the assisted suicide lobby group, Compassion & Choices, (formerly known as the Hemlock Society) about the use of "telemedicine" to approve deaths in New Mexico. Graham reports:

Proponents of medical assistance in dying say the use of telemedicine — diagnosing and treating patients from a distance through technology — is a logical next step for a practice that has been legal in some states for more than 20 years. They applaud New Mexico for drafting a bill that removes “unnecessary regulatory roadblocks” that make a dying person’s last stage of life even more difficult, and in some cases, prohibit the person from taking advantage of the law because of mandated waiting periods.

The assisted suicide lobby appears to have chosen New Mexico to introduce this extreme and expansive assisted suicide bill.

In her January 1 article: End-of-Life option laws should avoid needless red tape, Kim Callinan, argues that assisted suicide laws require fewer regulations. Callinan writes:

If lawmakers want to improve medical aid in dying laws, then let’s address the real problem: There are too many regulatory roadblocks already! I am not suggesting changing the eligibility requirements, as our opposition will suggest. I am merely suggesting that we drop some of the regulations that put unnecessary roadblocks in place.

Callinan continues her article by arguing that waiting periods for assisted suicide should be eliminated and claims that there have been no problems with assisted suicide laws.

New Mexico's assisted suicide bill is the most extreme bill that I have ever seen. The original Bill HB 90:

1. Allows nurses and physician assistants to participate in assisted suicide by defining "health care provider" to include: a licensed physician, a licensed osteopathic physician, a licensed nurse, and a licensed physician assistant. 
2. Does not require the person to "self administer." The bill states "may self-administer" meaning that euthanasia is possible.
3. Reduces waiting period to 48 hours to receive the lethal drugs.
4. Allows people with mental health disorders to die by assisted suicide by enabling licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, master social worker, psychiatric nurse practitioner or professional clinical mental health counselor to approve assisted suicide for people with mental health disorders.
5. Allows the "health care provider" to approve death via "telemedicine."
6. Replaces a the normal 6 month terminal diagnosis with the undefined term: "foreseeable future."  What does it mean that a terminal illness may cause death in the foreseeable future?
7. Requires health care providers to falsify the death certificate.
8. Removes conscience rights for health care providers who object to assisted suicide by requiring them to refer patients to a health care provider who is willing to prescribe assisted suicide.
9. Basis decisions on a "good faith compliance."  It is impossible to prove that someone who participated in the act did not do so in "good faith."

Years ago I stated that the assisted suicide lobby would expand the parameters for prescribing lethal drugs in the future. It appears that the future is now.

The assisted suicide lobby wants to eliminate "safeguards."

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

New Mexico's assisted suicide Bill HB 90, is the most extreme assisted suicide bill that I have ever seen. 

After reading HB 90 I asked the question: Is the assisted suicide lobby behind HB 90 or is the author of the bill, Deborah Armstrong (Dem) more radical than the rest of the suicide lobby?

I didn't have to wait long for the answer.

In her article: End-of-Life option laws should avoid needless red tape, Kim Callinan, the CEO of Compassion & Choices, (formerly known as the Hemlock society) argues that assisted suicide laws require fewer regulations. Callinan writes:

If lawmakers want to improve medical aid in dying laws, then let’s address the real problem: There are too many regulatory roadblocks already! I am not suggesting changing the eligibility requirements, as our opposition will suggest. I am merely suggesting that we drop some of the regulations that put unnecessary roadblocks in place.

Callinan continues her article by arguing that waiting periods for assisted suicide should be eliminated and she claims that there have been no problems with assisted suicide laws.

Now I know why New Mexico's assisted suicide bill is the most extreme bill that I have ever seen. HB 90:

1. Allows nurses and physician assistants to participate in assisted suicide by defining "health care provider" to include: a licensed physician, a licensed osteopathic physician, a licensed nurse, and a licensed physician assistant. 
2. Does not require the person to "self administer." The bill states "may self-administer" meaning that euthanasia is possible.
3. Reduces waiting period to 48 hours to receive the lethal drugs.
4. Allows people with mental health disorders to die by assisted suicide by enabling licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, master social worker, psychiatric nurse practitioner or professional clinical mental health counselor to approve assisted suicide for people with mental health disorders.
5. Does not require a second assessor unless the person has a mental health disorder or intellectual disability. 
6. Allows the "health care provider" to approve death via "telemedicine."
7. Replaces a the normal 6 month terminal diagnosis with the undefined term: "foreseeable future." What does it mean that a terminal illness may cause death in the foreseeable future?
8. Requires health care providers to falsify the death certificate.
9. Removes conscience rights for health care providers who object to assisted suicide by requiring them to refer patients to a health care provider who is willing to prescribe assisted suicide.
10. Basis decisions on a "good faith compliance."  It is impossible to prove that someone who participated in the act did not do so in "good faith."

Years ago I stated that the assisted suicide lobby would expand the parameters for prescribing lethal drugs in the future. Callinan is saying, in her article, that she believes that the future is now.

Help us prove Callinan wrong. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has organized the Stopping Assisted Suicide in Your State  Conference (January 26) and campaign training session (January 25) in Albuquerque New Mexico. (Information link).

You can watch the Saturday conference via the internet for $30. Contact us at: info@epcc.ca or call us at: 1-877-439-3348.

New Mexico assisted suicide bill is radical, but it does not permit suicide tourism.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On December 26 I published an article stating that the New Mexico assisted suicide bill (HB 90) may allow assisted suicide tourism. My article was wrong.

New Mexico assisted suicide Bill HB 90 is a dangerous assisted suicide bill and it is also written in an awkward manner.

All assisted suicide bills include a list of requirements to approve a person for a lethal prescription. That list always includes ... a residency requirement.

For instance, the Oregon assisted suicide act states that a "Qualified patient" means a capable adult who is a resident of Oregon.

HB 90 has a list of requirements but it does not include a residency requirement. But HB 90 does define "Adult" as a resident of the state who is eighteen years of age or older.

A problem exists. Section 3 in HB 90, describes the qualifications for assisted suicide, but it does not use the term "Adult," it uses the term "individual."

The term "Adult" only shows up in the form: REQUEST FOR MEDICATION TO END MY LIFE IN A PEACEFUL MANNER. This is the form for requesting assisted suicide that says:

I ... am an adult of sound mind.

In fact the form requesting assisted suicide is the only time HB 90 uses the word "Adult."

For more information about how dangerous assisted suicide bill HB 90 is read:

• New Mexico assisted suicide bill is the most extreme bill.
• New Mexico's radical assisted suicide bill.

New Mexico’s Radical Assisted Suicide Legislation

This article was published by National Review online on December 27.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

Assisted suicide advocates pretend they just want a very limited death license, a “safety valve,” as they put it, for suffering in the terminally ill that cannot otherwise be alleviated (almost always, a false premise).

The problem is, their laws and proposals never actually read that way. And now a legalization bill in New Mexico shows the true radical heart of the assisted suicide/euthanasia agenda.

The bill would allow non-doctors to lethally prescribe. From HB 90:

“Health care provider” means any of the following individuals authorized pursuant to the New Mexico Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act to prescribe a medication to be used in medical aid in dying:
(1) a physician licensed pursuant to the Medical Practice Act;
(2) an osteopathic physician licensed pursuant to the Osteopathic Medicine Act;
(3) a nurse licensed in advanced practice pursuant to the Nursing Practice Act; or
(4) a physician assistant licensed pursuant to .211127.5 the Physician Assistant Act or the Osteopathic Medicine Act;

Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are not as lengthily educated, nor as experienced in treating and palliating symptoms of serious diseases and disabilities as are physician specialists. So why allow these less qualified professionals to prescribe lethally? Many doctors refuse to participate in ending their patients’ lives where assisted suicide is legal. Broadening the lethal license to non-doctors would ensure a larger pool of ideologically suicide-friendly “health care providers” to whom advocates can refer suicidal patients.

The bill also stretches the “terminal illness” definition to the breaking point:

“Terminal illness” means a disease or condition that is incurable and irreversible and that, in accordance with reasonable medical judgment, will result in death within the foreseeable future.

Thus, a woman with, say, advanced-stage breast cancer–which could take years to reach the point of no return–would be eligible receive a lethal prescription. Ditto, those with progressive disabilities, HIV, kidney disease, etc. The obvious point of such a loose definition is to get closer to a death-on-demand assisted suicide right.

Lethal prescribers will be required to lie on the death certificate that the cause of death was the underlying condition–when in reality, it is quite possible that the condition would never have actually caused the patient’s death.

The bill could get people dead after 48 hours. There is no waiting period between request and issuance of the prescription, only a 48 hour delay in dispensing a written prescription:

WAITING PERIOD.–A prescription for medical aid in dying medication shall: A. not be filled until forty-eight hours after the .211127.5 prescription for medical aid in dying medication has been written.

This means that a patient could go to a nurse practitioner on Monday morning, be examined, have a telemedicine consult (see below), receive the prescription that day, have the poison dispensed on Wednesday, and be dead before Thursday begins.

Dissenting health care providers would have to discuss the availability of assisted suicide to every patient whose death is “foreseeable,” even if years in the future (remember the radical definition of terminal illness):

MEDICAL AID IN DYING–RIGHT TO KNOW.–A health care provider shall inform a terminally ill patient of all options related to the patient’s care that are legally available to terminally ill patients that meet the medical standards of care for end of life care.

In other words, patients who not receiving end-of-life care because they are not yet in the dying stage of their condition would have to be informed about the immediate availability of assisted suicide.

The consulting physician (second opinion) never has to actually meet the patient! The witnesses need only affirm that the consult examined the patient by “telemedicine:”

DECLARATION OF WITNESSES: We declare that the person signing this request: affirmed that the individual is:…(2) eligible to receive medical aid in dying after the prescribing health care provider has referred the individual to a consulting health care provider and the consulting health care provider has: (a) examined the individual, in person or using telemedicine;

No medical conscience allowed. After stating that no health care provider must participate, the legislation takes it back by requiring dissenters to refer to a willing prescriber:

If a health care provider is unable or unwilling to carry out an individual’s request pursuant to the Elizabeth Whitefield End of Life Options Act, that health care provider shall so inform the individual and refer the individual to a health care provider who is able and willing to carry out the individual’s request or to another individual or entity to assist the requesting individual in seeking medical aid in dying.

Lethal prescribers face far lower legal accountability for mistakes than treating health care providers:

A patient’s request for, or provision by a prescribing health care provider of, medical aid in dying medication in good faith compliance with this section does not constitute neglect for any purpose of law or provide the basis for the appointment of a guardian or conservator.

This means the lethal prescriber could make an egregious error–such as a misdiagnosis–and escape legal consequence if acting in “good faith,” whereas a treating doctor could be sued for malpractice under the same circumstance under the more rigorous “reasonable practitioner” standard of care that normally applies.

The assisted suicide movement is akin to a death cult. The ultimate ideological point isn’t to provide a last resort escape for the imminently dying, but to enable more people to get dead more quickly. That is why the “protective guidelines: constantly expand–sometimes, as here, even before legalization. Everything else is subterfuge.