Idaho man was charged with assisted suicide but it may be changed to homicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Idaho media reported that Dakota Travis Honeycutt (19) of Nampa Idaho was charged with assisted suicide, but is likely to be charged with homicide in the death of Kevin Hunt (48) who had been his room mate.

According to KTBV 7 news, Honeycutt was arrested after a body was found in Hunter’s Creek Sports Park. Honeycutt told police that he watched the Hunt shoot himself, but did not harm him. KTBV 7 reported:

In an interview Sunday night, Honeycutt told detectives that he drove the victim to Hunter’s Creek Park on Saturday night, and watched him shoot himself at around 9 p.m, according to the sheriff's office. Honeycutt said he left the body on the sidewalk, took the gun, and disposed of it before heading back to their apartment.

Ada County Sherrifs office provided an update on the case on December 28 stating:

An Ada County prosecutor said in court Tuesday she expects to charge at 19-year-old Middleton man with a homicide for his role in the shooting death of a 48-year-old man at Hunter’s Creek Sports Complex in Star Saturday night.

Dakota Travis Honeycutt initially told investigators he watched roommate Kevin Hunt complete suicide at the park on Christmas night with a shotgun — and then left Hunt at the park and drove away without telling anyone what happened.

Honeycutt was arrested and charged with felony counts of assisting in a suicide and destruction of evidence while detectives continued to work on the case.

Detectives continued to collect evidence, which included interviewing Honeycutt.

Deputy Ada County Prosecutor Heather Reilly told a judge during Honeycutt’s arraignment on Tuesday that additional evidence collected since Monday indicates what Honeycutt initially told detectives wasn’t accurate and that her office will be charging him with a homicide.

Under Idaho law, a homicide would be charged under the murder or manslaughter statutes. Prosecutors did not say which charge they are considering.

The Ada County Sheriff’s Dive Team found the shotgun in the river Monday morning.

The Ada County Sheriff's office has not disclosed the information that led them to conclude that the death was a homicide rather than assisting a suicide. Honeycutt claimed that he didn't cause the death of Hunt, but his confession led police to prosecuting him for assisted suicide. As stated by the Sheriff's office, further evidence indicates that it wasn't an assisted suicide but rather a homicide.

In the Last Ten Years, at Least Nine U.S. States Have Strengthened Their Laws Against Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia

Margaret Dore published this list of legislative and judicial victories to counter the media narrative that the United States is legalizing assisted suicide.

Alabama Governor, Kay Ivy

In the last ten years, at least nine states have strengthened their laws against assisted suicide/euthanasia. They are (alphabetical): 

1. Alabama: In 2017, Alabama enacted the Assisted Suicide Ban Act; 
2. Arizona: In 2014, Arizona strengthened its law against assisted suicide. 
3. Georgia: In 2012, Georgia strengthened its law against assisted suicide. 
4. Idaho: On April 5, 2011, Idaho strengthened its law against assisted suicide. 
5. Louisiana: In 2012, Louisiana strengthened its assisted suicide/euthanasia ban. 
6. New Mexico: In 2016, the New Mexico Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision recognizing a right to physician aid in dying, meaning physician assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide is no longer legal in New Mexico. See Morris v. Brandenburg, 376 P.3d 836 (2016). 
7. Ohio: In 2017, Ohio strengthened its law against assisted suicide. See http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3795 
8. South Dakota: In 2017, the South Dakota Legislature passed Concurrent Resolution 11, opposing physician-assisted suicide. See Bill History. 
9. Utah: In 2018, Utah amended its manslaughter statute to include assisted suicide. For more information, see https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/HB0086.html and click “status.”

The media promotes the legalization of assisted suicide but it ignores the success in preventing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Guardianship, Elder Abuse and Assisted Suicide: A personal shift in focus.

By Margaret K. Dore, Esq., MBA
The Voice of Experience, American Bar Association
Volume 25, No. 4, Winter 2014

Margaret Dore

(Link to the published article)

I graduated from law school in 1986. I first worked for the courts and then for the United States Department of Justice. After that, I worked for other lawyers, and then, in 1994, I officially started my own practice in Washington State. Like many lawyers with a new practice, I signed up for court-appointed work in the guardianship/probate context. This was mostly guardian ad litem work. Once in awhile, I was appointed as an attorney for a proposed ward, termed an “alleged incapacitated person.” In other states, a guardianship might be called a “conservatorship” or an “interdiction.” A guardian ad litem might be called a “court visitor.”

My Guardianship Cases
Most of my guardianship cases were straightforward. There would typically be a elderly person who could no longer handle his or her affairs. I would be the guardian ad litem. My job would be to determine whether the person needed a guardian, and if that were the case, to recommend a person or agency to fill that role.

My work also included private pay cases with moderate estates. With these cases, I would sometimes see financial abuse and exploitation. For example, there was an elderly woman whose nephew took her to the bank each week to obtain a large cash withdrawal. She had dementia, but she could pass as “competent” to get the money. In another case, “an old friend from 30 years ago” took “Jim,” a 90 year old man, to lunch. The friend invited Jim to live with him in exchange for making the friend sole beneficiary of his will. Jim agreed. The will was executed and he went to live with the friend in a nearby town. A guardianship was started and I was appointed guardian ad litem. I drove to the friend’s house, which was dilapidated. Jim did not seem to have his own room. I asked him if he would like to go home. He said “yes” and got in my car. He was not incompetent, but he had allowed someone else to take advantage of him. In another case, there was a disabled man whose caregiver had used his credit card to remodel her home. He too was competent, but he had been unable to protect himself.

In those first few years, I loved my guardianship cases. I had been close to my grandmother and enjoyed working with older people. I met guardians and other people who genuinely wanted to help others.

But then I got a case involving a competent man who had been railroaded into guardianship. The guardian, a company, refused to let him out. The guardian also appeared to be churning the case, i.e., causing conflict and then billing for work to respond to the conflict and/or to cause more conflict. I have an accounting background and also saw markers of embezzlement. I tried to tell the court, but the supervising commissioner didn’t know much about accounting. She allowed the guardian to hire its own CPA to investigate the situation, which predictably exonerated the guardian. The guardian had many cases and if what I said had been proved true, there would have been political fallout. There were also conflicts of interest among the lawyers.

At this point, the scales began to fall from my eyes. My focus started to shift from working within the system to seeing how the system itself sometimes facilitates abuse. This led me to write articles addressing some of the system’s flaws.  See e.g., Margaret K. Dore, Ten Reasons People Get Railroaded into Guardianship, 21 AM. J. FAM. L. 148 (2008), available at: (Link); Margaret K. Dore, The Time is Now: Guardians Should be Licensed and Regulated Under the Executive Branch, Not the Courts, WASH. ST. B. ASS’N B. NEWS, Mar. 2007 at 27-9, available at: (Link).

The MetLife Studies 
In 2009, the MetLife Mature Market Institute released its landmark study on elder financial abuse. (Link) The estimated financial loss by victims in the United States was $2.6 billion per year.

The study also explained that perpetrators are often family members, some of whom feel themselves “entitled” to the elder’s assets. The study states that perpetrators start out with small crimes, such as stealing jewelry and blank checks, before moving on to larger items or coercing elders to sign over the deeds to their homes, change their wills or liquidate their assets.

In 2011, Met Life released another study available at (Link), which described how financial abuse can be catalyst for other types of abuse and which was illustrated by the following example. “A woman barely came away with her life after her caretaker of four years stole money from her and pushed her wheelchair in front of a train. After the incident the woman said, “We were so good of friends . . . I’m so hurt that I can’t stop crying.”

Failure to Report
A big reason that elder abuse and exploitation are prevalent is that victims do not report. This failure to report can be for many reasons. A mother being abused by her son might not want him to go to jail. She might also be humiliated, ashamed or embarrassed about what’s happening. She might be legitimately afraid that if she reveals the abuse, she will be put under guardianship.

The statistics that I’ve seen on unreported cases vary, from only 2 in 4 cases being reported, to one in 20 cases. Elder abuse and exploitation are, regardless, a largely uncontrolled problem.

A New Development: Legalized Assisted Suicide
Another development relevant to abuse and exploitation is the ongoing push to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in the United States. “Assisted suicide” means that someone provides the means and/or information for another person to commit suicide. If the assisting person is a physician who prescribes a lethal dose, a more precise term is “physician-assisted suicide.”  “Euthanasia,” by contrast, is the direct administration of a lethal agent with the intent to cause another person’s death.

In the United States, physician-assisted suicide is legal in three states: Oregon, Washington and Vermont. Eligible patients are required to be “terminal,” which means having less than six months to live. Such patients, however, are not necessarily dying. One reason is because expectations of life expectancy can be wrong. Treatment can also lead to recovery. I have a friend who was talked out of using Oregon’s law in 2000. Her doctor, who did not believe in assisted suicide, convinced her to be treated instead. She is still alive today, 13 years later.

Oregon’s law was enacted by a ballot measure in 1997. Washington’s law was passed by another measure in 2008 and went into effect in 2009. Vermont’s law was enacted on May 20, 2013. All three laws are a recipe for abuse. One reason is that they allow someone else to talk for the patient during the lethal dose request process. Moreover, once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight over administration. Even if the patient struggled, who would know? [See: Link]

Here in Washington State, we have already had informal proposals to expand our law to non-terminal people. The first time I saw this was in a newspaper article in 2011. More recently, there was a newspaper column suggesting euthanasia “if you couldn’t save enough money to see yourself through your old age,” which would be involuntary euthanasia. Prior to our law being passed, I never heard anyone talk like this.

I have written multiple articles discussing problems with legalization, including Margaret K. Dore, "Death with Dignity”: What Do We Advise Our Clients?," King Co. B. ASS’N, B. BuLL., May 2009, available at: (Link) ; Margaret K. Dore, Aid in Dying: Not Legal in Idaho; Not About Choice, 52 THE ADVOCATE [the official publication of the Idaho State Bar] 9, 18-20 (Sept. 2013) available at: (Link). 

My Cases Involving the Oregon and Washington Assisted Suicide Laws
I have had two clients whose parents signed up for the lethal dose. In the first case, one side of the family wanted the father to take the lethal dose, while the other did not. He  spent the last months of his life caught in the middle and traumatized over whether or not he should kill himself. My client, his adult daughter, was also 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. A man who was present told my client that the father refused to take the lethal dose when it was delivered (“You’re not killing me. I’m going to bed”), but then took it the next night when he was high on alcohol. The man who told this to my client later recanted. My client did not want to pursue the matter further.

Conclusion
In my guardianship cases, people were financially abused and sometimes treated terribly, but nobody died and sometimes we were able to make their lives much better. With legal assisted suicide, the abuse is final. Don’t make Washington’s mistake.

Margaret K. Dore (margaretdore@margaretdore.com) JD, MBA, is an attorney in private practice in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. She is a former Law Clerk to the Washington State Supreme Court and the Washington State Court of Appeals. She worked for a year with the U.S. Department of Justice and is president of Choice is an Illusion, www.choiceillusion.org, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Not Dead Yet supports Montana assisted suicide bill.

The following letter was sent by Diane Coleman, the founder and President of the disability rights group, Not Dead Yet to the members of the Montana Senate Judiciary Committee who will be considering a bill to clarify and protect Montana citizens from assisted suicide.

Diane Coleman

Dear Senate Judiciary Committee Member:

Not Dead Yet is a national disability rights group with members in Montana. On behalf of our members, I write to say that we urge you to pass HB 505, which is a short and simple bill to prevent legalization of assisted suicide and end the dispute over whether it is legal in Montana.

In the last two years, three other states have strengthened their laws against assisted suicide (Idaho, Georgia and Louisiana). Not Dead Yet of Georgia was involved in the Georgia efforts. We met with a woman, Sue Celmer, whose ex-husband had been assisted to commit suicide by the Final Exit Network. He had previously battled cancer, but was cancer free when these suicide predators assisted him. Her story helped convey the urgency of legislation banning assisted suicide. We hope that Montana will join Georgia and the other two states to protect older people, our families and ourselves. Leading proponents of bills to legalize assisted suicide for the terminally ill often claim that the views of disability organizations aren’t relevant.  While it’s true that people with disabilities aren’t usually terminally ill, the terminally ill are almost always disabled. This is one of many reasons that our perspective may shed some light on this complex issue.

People with disabilities and chronic conditions live on the front lines of the health care system that serves (and too often under serves) dying people. One might view us as the proverbial “canaries in the coal mine” who are alerting others to dangers we see first.

Assisted suicide supporters paint themselves as “compassionate progressives” fighting for freedom against the “religious right.” It’s a simple message, and it goes down well, if you ignore inconvenient truths, such as:

• Predictions that someone will die in six months are often wrong;
• People who want to die usually have treatable depression and/or need better palliative care;
• Pressures to cut health care costs in the current fiscal climate make this the wrong time to add doctor prescribed suicide to the options;
• Abuse of elders and people with disabilities is a growing but often undetected problem, making coercion virtually impossible to identify or prevent. It’s not the proponents’ good intentions but the language and implementation of assisted suicide laws that legislators need to consider.

As one of countless disabled people who’s survived a terminal prediction, I can’t help but become concerned when the accuracy of a terminal prognosis determines whether someone gets suicide assistance rather than suicide prevention.

The Oregon Reports themselves show that non terminal people are getting lethal prescriptions – up to 1009 days have passed between the request for a lethal prescription and death. One of the many things the Reports hide is specifically how many lived longer than six months, but we do know that there’s no consequence to the assisting doctors for this or any other mistake in the assisted suicide process.

Proponents also claim that 15 years of data from Oregon show that safeguards to ensure that it's voluntary are working. How would they know? The Oregon Reports only tell us what the prescribing doctors indicated were the patients’ reasons for wanting assisted suicide by checking off one or more of seven reasons on a multiple choice state government form.

One of the reasons is feelings of being a burden on others, checked in 39% of the cases. But there’s no corresponding requirement that home care options be disclosed as part of informed consent under the law, much less that they be offered or funded.

Although the Oregon Reports admit that the state can’t assess compliance with the safeguards, some independent articles find that safeguards failed in individual cases (see, e.g., Hendin & Foley, MDs, “Physician-Assisted Suicide in Oregon: A Medical Perspective”, Michigan Law Review, June 2008, 
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/pdfs/106/8/hendinfoley.pdf). But the law includes no authority for investigation or enforcement, so nothing happens as a result.

It has been estimated that there are 21,265 reported and unreported cases of elder abuse annually in Montana (Elder Abuse Data and Statistics, Elder Abuse Daily, February 15, 2010 http://web.archive.org/web/20101021101332/http://www.eadaily.com/15/elder-abuse-statistics/). Statistically, 90% of elder abusers are a family member or trusted other. Similarly, people with disabilities are up to four times more likely to be abused than their same-age nondisabled peers. In Oregon and Washington, legal assisted suicide has opened new paths of abuse against persons who may qualify to use these laws. One of the most obvious problems is a complete lack of oversight when the lethal drug is administered. If an abuser were to administer the drug without the person’s consent, who would know?

It is simply naive to suggest that assisted suicide can be added to the array of medical treatment options, without taking into account the harsh realities of elder abuse and the related potential for coercion.

We urge you to vote in favor of HB 505.

Sincerely,
Diane Coleman, JD, MBA
President/CEO Not Dead Yet
497 State Street Rochester, NY 14608
www.notdeadyet.org

Support HB 505, to protect Montanans from Assisted Suicide

Statement supporting HB 505


This statement was also printed on March 15 in the Bozman Daily Chronicle.

By Bradley Williams - Montanans Against Assisted Suicide.

House Bill 505 will end the confusion over assisted suicide in Montana.  The bill’s other purpose is to prevent the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.  

Assisted suicide means that someone provides the means and/or information for another person to commit suicide.  When a physician is involved, the practice is physician-assisted suicide.[1]

Assisted suicide is opposed by the American Medical Association and disability rights groups such as the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) and Not Dead Yet.[2]  Assisted suicide is also opposed by the 4000 plus Montanans who have signed our petition against assisted suicide.  Their concerns include elder abuse and steerage of themselves or their family members to suicide.
   
Other States

In the last two years, three states have strengthened their laws against assisted suicide.[3]  These states are Idaho, Georgia and Louisiana.[4]  There are only two states where assisted suicide is legal: Oregon and Washington.  In these two states, the following problems have emerged. 

Throwing away your life

The Oregon and Washington laws allow a doctor to prescribe a  lethal drug to a patient predicted to have less than six months to live.  Predictions of life expectancy can, however, be wrong and treatment can lead to recovery.  Consider Oregon resident, Jeanette Hall, who was diagnosed with cancer and adamant that she would “do” Oregon’s law.  Her doctor convinced her to be treated instead.  Now, twelve years later, “she is thrilled to be alive.” [5] Legal assisted suicide encourages people with many quality years left to throw away their lives.[6]

Elder abuse

The Oregon and Washington laws have significant gaps so that people who use these laws are unprotected from abuse.  The most obvious gap is a complete lack of oversight when the lethal drug is administered.  This creates the opportunity for an heir, or for someone else who will benefit from the patient’s death, to administer the drug to the patient without his consent.   Even if he struggled, who would know?  These laws create the opportunity for the perfect crime.[7]

Steerage 

In Oregon, legalization of assisted suicide has empowered the Oregon Health Plan (Medicaid) to steer patients to suicide.  Specifically, the Plan denies coverage for treatment and offers to pay for suicide instead.  For more detail, see the affidavit of Dr. Ken Stevens, ¶¶ 8 to 12, at: http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/signed-stevens-aff-9-18-12.pdf 

House Bill 505

HB 505 clarifies Montana’s existing prohibition against “aiding or soliciting suicide” by expressly stating that physician-assisted suicide is an offense.[8]

HB 505 also gives doctors a clear safe harbor in which they are free to perform palliative care and/or to withhold or withdraw treatment under the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act.[9]  In other words, the law regarding palliative care and withholding or withdrawing treatment remains unchanged. 

Why Legislators Should Vote “Yes”
 
HB 505 is needed because the Montana Supreme Court decision, Baxter v. State, has created uncertainty in the law.  Baxter did not legalize assisted suicide, but the decision is confusing.  This has allowed suicide proponents to falsely and aggressively claim that assisted suicide is “already legal.”  Indeed, the proponents are actively recruiting doctors to perform assisted suicides.

Under HB 505, the law will instead be clarified that physician-assisted suicide is not legal in Montana.  There will be a clear tool for law enforcement, the medical profession and other interested parties to protect citizens from the negative consequences of assisted suicide legalization.

For more information about why HB 505 is the right step for Montana, see: www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org 

Please tell your legislators to vote “yes” on HB 505.
______

*Bradley Williams is President of Montanans Against Assisted Suicide (MAAS).  He can be reached at 406 531 0937 and bradley@montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org 

Footnotes
[1]  The American Medical Association (AMA) states "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 the life-ending act." (AMA Code of Medical Ethics, Opinion 2.211).
[2]  The AMA's opposition to physician-assisted suicide is set forth here: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion2211.page  The opposition of the Disability Rights Education Defense Fund and Not Dead Yet is set forth here and here.
[3]  Margaret Dore, US Overview, at: http://www.choiceillusion.org/p/us-overview.html
[4]  Id.
[5]  See Affidavit of Kenneth Stevens, MD, Leblanc v. Canada, ¶¶ 3 to 6, at: http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/signed-stevens-aff-9-18-12.pdf 
[6]  Id, ¶ 7.
[7]  For more information, see: Margaret K. Dore, "'Death with Dignity': What Do We Advise Our Clients?," King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, May 2009; Margaret Dore, "'Death with Dignity': A Recipe for Elder Abuse and Homicide (Albeit not by Name)," Marquette Elder's Advisor, Vol. 11, No. 2, Spring 2010; and Margaret Dore, Oregon's New Statistics, at: http://www.choiceillusion.org/2013/01/oregons-new-statistics.html 
[8]  HB 505 can be viewed here:  http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billpdf/HB0505.pdf 
[9]  Id. at lines 26 to 28 regarding Title 50, Chapters 9 & 10 (the Rights of the  Terminally Ill Act is Chapter 9, see: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/50_9.htm).

Assisted Suicide is not legal in Hawaii

An article that published in the Honolulu Star Advertiser once again confirms that assisted suicide is not legal in Hawaii. Compassion & Choices, (C & C) known by Not Dead Yet researcher Stephen Drake as "Conflation and Con Jobs," claimed that an obscure law from 1909 that allows people in Hawaii to use drugs that have not been approved for use in Hawaii, as also allowing people in Hawaii die by suicide assistance.

Senator Josh Green

Deputy Attorney General Heidi M. Rian and Attorney General David Louie responded to a question by Senator Josh Green, the chair of the Senate Health Committee. The response to Senator Green stated:

"We do not believe that (Hawaii Revised Statutes) 453-1 provides authority for a physician to assist with dying. "A physician who provided such assistance could be charged under Hawaii's manslaughter statute."

In response to the contention that the 1909 law allowed doctors to prescribe suicide for their patients, the statement said:

there is nothing in the legislative history that "supports a conclusion that the term includes lethal dosages of medication."

This is not a new strategy for C & C.

Connecticut

C & C also claimed that Connecticut's law that prohibited assisted suicide, did not prohibit "Aid in Dying". This case was based on a Word Game and in June 2010, the Connecticut court clearly decided that "Conflation and Con Jobs" - C & C were trying to fool them and they threw the case out.

C & C claimed, in June 2010, that assisted suicide was legal in Idaho. They stated that their was no specific law that prohibited assisted suicide in Idaho, even though the common law was recognized as prohibiting assisted suicide and assisted suicide was considered to be part of the manslaughter provisions in Idaho. The position of C & C was not only rejected but in 2011, the Idaho legislature overwhelmingly passed a bill to clarify that assisted suicide is a felony in Idaho.

For more information on the Hawaii case go to: Article 1, Article 2.

United States Overview

By Margaret Dore - Choice is an Illusion. Link to the original article.

 
There are two states where physician-assisted suicide is legal: Oregon and Washington. In these states, statutes give criminal and civil immunity to doctors and others who participate in a qualified patient's suicide.  Oregon's act was enacted via a ballot initiative in 1997. Washington's act was enacted via a ballot initiative in 2008 and went into effect in 2009.  Washington's act is modeled on Oregon's act. 

In Oregon and Washington, assisted-suicide laws apply to "terminal" patients, defined in terms of having less than six months to live. Such persons are not necessarily dying. Consider, for example, Jeanette Hall, alive 11 years after her terminal diagnosis. More recent proposals to legalize assisted suicide have included people who are clearly not dying. See here, here and here.   

In Montana, Baxter v. State gives doctors who assist a patient's suicide a potential defense to prosecution for homicide. Baxter does not legalize assisted suicide by giving doctors or anyone else immunity from criminal and civil liability although proponents argue that this is the case. This year, a bill to reverse Baxter's potential defense was defeated. In Montana, the leading group against assisted suicide is Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity.

This year, Idaho enacted a statute strengthening its law against assisted suicide. This was after proponents falsely claimed that assisted suicide was already legal. For more information, click here.

This year, bills to legalize physician-assisted suicide were defeated in Montana, Hawaii and New Hampshire. In Vermont, identical legalization bills were introduced in the House and Senate, but not put on for vote before the legislative session ended.

In Hawaii, where a bill to legalize assisted suicide was defeated this year as well as in prior years, proponents claim that assisted suicide is legal. For more information, click here. See also Hawaii Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity.

In Connecticut, a lawsuit to legalize physician-assisted suicide was dismissed in 2010.

In Massachusetts, there is a pending ballot initiative to enact an Oregon/Washington style act that applies to "terminal" patients defined as having less than six months to live. For more information, see The Massachusetts Assisted Suicide Initiative:  "Choice" is an Illusion.

In the US, no assisted suicide/euthanasia law has ever made it through the scrutiny of a legislature despite more than 100 attempts.

Massachusetts: Assisted suicide is a recipe for elder abuse; do not be deceived.

This article is a reprint of the article that Margaret Dore published yesterday on her blog. Link.

Margaret Dore

By Margaret Dore

A ballot initiative to legalize physician-assisted suicide via a "death with dignity" act is now in the signature-gathering stage in Massachusetts.[1]

Physician-assisted suicide is legal in just two states: Oregon and Washington.[2] In both states, acts to legalize the practice were enacted via sound-bite ballot initiative campaigns.[3] No such law has made it through the scrutiny of a legislature. Just this year, bills to legalize assisted suicide were defeated in Montana, New Hampshire and Hawaii.[4] Just this year, Idaho enacted a statute to strengthen its law against assisted suicide.[5]

The proposed Massachusetts act is a recipe for elder abuse. Key provisions include that an heir, who will benefit financially from a patient's death, is allowed to participate as a witness to help sign the patient up for the lethal dose. See Section 21 of the act, allowing one of two witnesses on the lethal dose request form to be an heir. This situation invites undue influence and coercion. See act here.

Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight. The act does not require witnesses when the lethal dose is administered. See act here. Without disinterested witnesses, an opportunity is created for an heir, or another person who will benefit from the patient's death, to administer the lethal dose to him without his consent. Even if he struggled who would know?

In Massachusetts, proponents are framing the issue as religious. In Washington state, proponents used a similar tactic and even religious slurs to distract voters from the pitfalls of legalization. What the proposed law said and did was all but forgotten.

                

Do not be deceived.

* * *

Margaret Dore is an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. She is also President of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide. Her publications include Margaret K. Dore, "Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Recipe for Elder Abuse and the Illusion of Personal Choice," The Vermont Bar Journal, Winter 2011.

* * *

[1]  To view the proposed Massachusetts initiative, click here.

[2]  In Montana, there is a court decision that gives doctors who cause or aid a suicide, a potential defense to criminal prosecution for homicide. The decision does not legalize assisted suicide by giving doctors or anyone else immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability. To learn more, go here.   The assisted suicide promotion group, Compassion & Choices, has a new campaign claiming that assisted suicide is "already legal" in Hawaii. This is an odd claim given that bills to legalize assisted suicide in Hawaii have repeatedly failed, most recently this year. See the most recent bill in Hawaii.

[3]  Oregon's physician-assisted suicide act was enacted via Ballot Measure 16. Washington's act was enacted via Initiative 1000.

[4]  In Montana, SB 167 was tabled in Committee and subsequently died on April 28, 2011. In New Hampshire, HB 513 was defeated on March 16, 2011. In Hawaii, SB 803 was defeated on February 7, 2011.

[5]  On July 1 2011, Idaho's new statute strengthening Idaho law against assisted suicide went into effect.

Suicide lobby is spinning the truth about assisted suicide in Hawaii.

Compassion & Choices, known by Not Dead Yet researcher, Stephen Drake as Conflation & Con Jobs is once again spinning a lie, this time in Hawaii.

Barbara Coombs Lee claims in an article in the Huffington Post that physician assisted suicide is legal in Hawaii.

This is an interesting claim considering that in the past few years there have been several bills to legalize assisted suicide in Hawaii, that were all defeated. During the most recent legislative session a bill to legalize assisted suicide was defeated in the state Senate Health Committee by a 4 to 0 vote.

It seems that Compassion & Choices, and a few assisted suicide lobby cronies, held a meeting in Hawaii to find approval for their theory that assisted suicide is somehow legal in Hawaii.

Coombs Lee's argument seems very similar to the failed attempt to have the Connecticut court agree that assisted suicide is already legal and the failed attempt in Idaho to have assisted suicide declared legal.

Coombs Lee and her Conflation & Con Jobs team seem to follow the philosophy

"If you say it enough, people will believe you."

Margaret Dore, the incredible legal researcher and Washington State elder law attorney has written a response to Coombs Lee that definitively proves that assisted suicide is not legal in Hawaii.

Hawaii: Assisted Suicide is Not "Already Legal"

Margaret Dore

By Margaret Dore

Kathryn Tucker, Director of Legal Affairs for Compassion & Choices, claims that physician-assisted suicide, which she terms "aid in dying," is already legal in Hawaii.[1] Her claim, based in part on a 1909 statute, fails for the reasons set forth below.

A. Hawaii's Manslaughter Statute Applies
Tucker argues that Hawaii's manslaughter statute, providing that an individual commits manslaughter if "[t]he person intentionally causes another person to commit suicide," does not apply to "aid in dying" because aid in dying is not "suicide."[2] Just last year, in Blick v. Connecticut, Tucker made a similar argument that was summarily rejected by the trial court.[3] The trial judge stated:

"[T]he legislature intended the [manslaughter] statute to apply to physicians who assist a suicide . . ." [4]

B. The 1909 Statute
Tucker's brief states:

"Hawaii law . . . contains a unique provision that gives physicians broad discretion when treating terminally ill patients: '[W]hen a duly licensed physician or osteopathic physician pronounces a person affected with any disease hopeless and beyond recovery and gives a written certificate to that effect to the person affected or the person’s attendant nothing herein shall forbid any person from giving or furnishing any remedial agent or measure when so requested by or on behalf of the affected person.'"[5]

She further states: "Added in 1909, the purpose of this provision was to give terminally ill patients the option to obtain treatment that had not yet been approved by the government."[6]

C. Bills Have Repeatedly Failed
In Hawaii, bills to enact physician-assisted suicide have repeatedly failed and/or been defeated in the Legislature since at least 2002.[7] This fact alone is sufficient to defeat Tucker's claim that the above statute has somehow already legalized assisted suicide. Consider for example, Lawrence v. Lawrence, 105 Wn.App. 683, 687-8, 20 P.3d 972 (2001). The Washington State Court of Appeals held that the "friendly parent concept" was not the law because bills to enact it had been rejected by the legislature. In Hawaii, bills to enact physician-assisted suicide have repeatedly failed and/or been rejected in the legislature. For this reason alone, physician-assisted suicide is not the law of Hawaii.

D. False and "Malarky"
Tucker argues that "aid in dying" should emerge in Hawaii as a practice governed by a developing standard of care due to the influence of Oregon, Washington and Montana.[8] This is similar to an argument she made last year in The Advocate, the official publication of the Idaho State Bar.[9] She claimed that "aid in dying" was already legal in Idaho due to the law of Oregon, Washington and Montana.[10] In The Advocate's next issue, a former Chief Justice and other lawyers denounced her reasoning as "false" and "malarkey."[11]

E. Matters Not Addressed
Tucker's brief does not address address language in the Hawaiian Pain Patient's Bill of Rights, which states:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to: . . . prohibit the discipline or prosecution of a licensed physician for: . . . Causing, or assisting in causing, the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of any individual . . ."[12]

Her brief also fails to address Hawaii case law, which imposes a duty of care to prevent suicide on a defendant with actual custody of a suicidal person.[13] In other words, civil damages can be imposed for failing to prevent a suicide in Hawaii.[14]

* * *
Margaret Dore is President of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposing assisted suicide and euthanasia. She is also an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. For more information, see www.margaretdore.com

* * *
[1] Kathryn Tucker, "End-of-life Law and Policy in Hawaii Aid in Dying," as of September 20, 2011, available at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/tucker-brief_0011.pdf
[2] Tucker, note 1 above, Section II.B. ("Criminal Prohibitions Governing End-of-Life Care").
[3] http://www.choiceillusionconnecticut.org/p/connecticut-2.html, paragraph 3.
[4] Id., paragraph 4.
[5] Tucker, note 1 above, Section II.A. ("Hawaii Law Empowers Patients to Make Autonomous End-of-Life Treatment Decisions")
[6] Id.
[7] Tucker concedes that bills to legalize physician-assisted suicide have been proposed and failed since 2002. See Tucker, note 1 above, second paragraph. Just this year, Senate Bill 803 bill was voted down in Committee, 4 to 0.
[8] Tucker, note 1 above, Sections titled: "Aid in Dying Should be Governed by Standard of Care," "Aid in Dying in Other States" and "Conclusion: Aid in Dying Can and Should Emerge as an End-of-Life Option in Hawaii as a Practice Governed by Standard of Care."
[9] See Kathryn Tucker & Christine Salmi, "Aid in Dying: Law, Geography and Standard of Care in Idaho, 53 The Advocate, Official Publication of the Idaho State Bar, No. 8, 42-45 (2010).
[10] Id .
[11] Hon. Robert E. Bakes et al, Letters to the Editor, 53 The Advocate, Official Publication of the Idaho State Bar, No. 9, 15-17 (2010).
[12] Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 327H-2.
[13] See e.g., Schwenke v. Outrigger Hotels, 122 Hawai'i 389, 392 (2010).
[14] Id.

Link to the original article by Kathryn Tucker.

Link to the original publication of this article at Choice is an Illusion.

Idaho Governor signs bill to assure that seniors and other vulnerable people are protected from assisted suicide

Bill SB 1070, the bill that makes assisted suicide a felony in Idaho, was signed by Governor Butch Otter almost two weeks ago.

Last year, Kathryn Tucker, the legal director for Compassion & Choices, formerly the Hemlock Society, organized a campaign to legalize assisted suicide in Idaho.

In response to the campaign by Compassion & Choices, on February 4, Senator Russ Fulcher introduced Senate Bill SB 1070 to clean-up the criminal code making assisted suicide a felony in Idaho.

On March 11, the Idaho Senate passed the bill by a vote of 31 to 2 and on March 27, the Idaho House passed the bill by a vote of 61 to 8.

This is a significant victory that was supported by the Idaho Medical Association. This amendment will ensure that Idaho citizens and elders are protected from assisted suicide.

We thank the group Idaho Chooses Life for supporting the bill.