Boston Globe articles promote the legalization of assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Boston Globe published two articles by Robert Weisman on December 11, 2022 promoting the legalization of assisted suicide in Massachusetts. The articles, which are free advertising for the assisted suicide lobby, are oriented to helping the assisted suicide lobby urge legislators to legalize assisted suicide in the upcoming legislative session. (Article 1) (Article 2).

Based on the tone of the articles, it appears that the Boston Globe plans to strongly support the legalization of assisted suicide in Massachusetts.

The first article begins by quoting Rep James O'Day, a Worcester Democrat and the lead sponsor of the assisted suicide bill, who says that he hopes that the assisted suicide bill can pass in 2022.

The article then quotes Governor Maura Healey who states that she would support the bill under certain conditions.

In the last legislature, the assisted suicide bill passed in the Joint Committee on Public Health but failed to advance in the Joint Committee on Healthcare Financing.

The article does state that opposition to the bill continues. Weisman writes:

House Speaker Ronald Mariano last spring said representatives in his chamber remained “very divided” on the issue. Mariano, through a spokesman, declined a request for an interview for this story. Senate President Karen Spilka similarly declined to discuss the matter. In separate statements, both promised to continue reviewing the bill in conversations with their colleagues in the upcoming session.

But the article continues with promoting assisted suicide by quoting State Senator Joanne Comerford, the Senate sponsor of the past assisted suicide bill as stating:

The idea of government restricting the end-of-life options of people in pain “becomes dangerous,”

The reality is that legalizing assisted suicide is dangerous.

The second article interviews several people who had family members die a difficult death and a few people with terminal and chronic conditions who "want the option."

John Kelly

Nonetheless the second article does create some balance by interviewing John Kelly, the Director of Second Thoughts Massachusetts. Weisman writes:

Disability-rights advocate John Kelly, who lives in Boston’s Fenway neighborhood, is director of Second Thoughts Massachusetts, a group opposing what it calls “assisted suicide.” He’s also a quadriplegic who injured his spinal cord in a sledding accident 38 years ago.

Kelly, 64, has testified against medical aid-in-dying legislation and organized a rally against the appeal to legalize it through the Supreme Judicial Court. He condemns a “better dead than disabled” mindset he sees in those distressed about loss of control at the end of their lives.

“Proponents say it’s about pain and suffering,” Kelly said. “But it’s relatively privileged people’s response to their own disability and dependence on others.”

Folks with disabilities often grapple with a lack of access to health care and home care services, he said. “Everyone should receive effective palliative care,” he said. “But we also believe people should be able to stay in their home and have adequate care there. This is really a values discussion masquerading as a medical issue.”

Kelly is also highly skeptical of treating a physician’s six-month prognosis as an exact science.

“People have to remember that doctors are often wrong about predicting when someone will die,” he said.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court is deliberating on the Kligler case that asked the court to find a right to assisted suicide in Massachusetts. That decision is expected soon.

EPC-USA presented oral argument in Massachusetts Supreme Court Kligler assisted suicide case.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

EPC-USA filed a powerful Amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Court in the Kligler assisted suicide case. 

EPC-USA was the only friend-of-the-court brief that was also asked to provide an oral argument before the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

The case known as Kligler concerns Dr Roger Kligler is living with prostate cancer and seeking death by assisted suicide and Dr Alan Schoenberg, is willing to prescribe a lethal drug cocktail for Kligler to die by assisted suicide.  Kligler who claimed to be terminally ill when the case began in 2016 is very much alive today.

Kligler and Schoenberg are arguing that doctors cannot be prosecuted for prescribing lethal drugs for assisted suicide to a competent terminally ill person under the Massachusetts state constitution.

An article by Sean Salai for the Washington Times on March 11 reported that Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) which represented EPC-USA were the only group asked to provide oral argument before the court in defense of maintaining the Massachusetts law prohibiting assisted suicide. Salai stated:

In a friend-of-the-court brief, ADF attorneys argue that the two doctors “seek to establish a previously unrecognized right to ‘medical aid in dying,’ where a doctor prescribes lethal medication for use in committing suicide.”

“Creating a right to physician-assisted suicide would not be a mere expansion of the right to refuse life-saving treatment,” the ADF said, adding that the “vast majority” of U.S. states and medical associations oppose it.

Salai reported that Sara Buscher, the chair of EPC-USA stated:

Sara Buscher, chair of the nonprofit Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA that filed the amicus brief through Alliance Defending Freedom, said the two doctors want to redefine the purpose of medical treatment. 

“Major medical organizations like the American Medical Association oppose the practice of assisted suicide for good reason: turning doctors into killers is the opposite of a doctor’s role in medicine,” Ms. Buscher said. “Assisted suicide treats some people, particularly the disabled, as better off dead.”

The EPC-USA brief agrued the following:

• There is no fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide in the Massachusetts Constitution.

The Appellants seek to establish a previously unrecognized right to “medical aid in dying,” where a doctor prescribes lethal medication for use in committing suicide. But the widespread prohibition—not acceptance—of assisted suicide is deeply rooted in Massachusetts’ and the Nation’s history and tradition. And the vast majority of states and secular medical associations oppose it today.

• There is a fundamental difference between refusing medical treatment and assisted suicide.

Creating a right to physician-assisted suicide would not be a mere expansion of the right to refuse life-saving treatment. The right to reject treatment is based on the common-law right to reject a battery. And death occurs, if at all, by natural causes. Assisted suicide is different: it invites the intrusion of a lethal agent into the patient’s body, intentionally causing death.

• A right to assisted suicide cannot be a limited right as claimed by the appellants.

Appellants are wrong to suggest a constitutional right to assisted suicide could be limited to a narrow class of people. And that would create problems courts are not equipped to solve.

EPC-USA argued that if there is a right to assisted suicide then it would be soon declared discriminatory to limit that right to certain groups of people, such as people who are terminally ill leading to an ever expanding assisted suicide regime.

Links to more articles on the Massachusetts assisted suicide Kligler court case:

• If assisted suicide were legal, plaintiff in Massachusetts assisted suicide court case may have died prematurely (Link).
• EPC-USA files brief to Massachusetts Supreme Court in the Kligler assisted suicide case (Link).
• Massachusetts Supreme Court to hear assisted suicide case (Link).
• Assisted suicide lobby to appeal Massachusetts court decision stating that there is no right to assisted suicide (Link).
• Disability leaders praise Massachusetts court decision stating that there is no right to assisted suicide (Link).
• Massachusetts court decision explains why assisted suicide should not be legal (Link).
• Massachusetts court rules that there is no right to assisted suicide (Link).

If assisted suicide were legal, plaintiff in Massachusetts assisted suicide court case may have died prematurely.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In January 2020 the US assisted suicide lobby appealed a  Massachusetts Superior court decision finding that there was no right to assisted suicide in Massachusetts. Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. 

Important article: EPC-USA files brief to Massachusetts Supreme Court in the Kliger assisted suicide case (Link).

Roger Kligler

The Kligler case concerns Dr Roger Kligler, who is living with prostate cancer and seeking death by assisted suicide and Dr Alan Schoenberg, who is willing to prescribe lethal assisted suicide drugs to Kligler. Kligler who claimed to be terminally ill when launching the case in 2016, is very much alive today.

Kligler and Schoenberg are arguing that the Massachusetts state constitution protects doctors from being criminally prosecuting for prescribing lethal drugs for assisted suicide to a competent terminally ill person.

Tonya Alanez interviewed Dr Kligler for the Cape Cod news. Alanez wrote:

Two years ago, Dr. Roger Kligler needed a walker to travel a short distance from his Falmouth home. Then a loop or two around his cul-de-sac expanded to three or four. Eventually, Kliger was trekking to another neighborhood.

Nowadays, the 70-year-old physician, who was diagnosed with cancer 20 years ago, finds clarity with a meditative two-hour evening walk near a pond and bird sanctuary. Like so many times since Kligler became ill, his health has declined — only to remarkably rebound.

Kligler told Alanez that he doesn't qualify for assisted suicide but he wants the option when the time comes. It is interesting that Kligler admits that he has rebounded several times. Since qualifying for assisted suicide is based on an estimated prognosis, if assisted suicide were legal in Massachusetts, he may have died already.

EPC-USA submitted an Amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, in the Kligler case stating:

• There is no fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide in the Massachusetts Constitution.

The Appellants seek to establish a previously unrecognized right to “medical aid in dying,” where a doctor prescribes lethal medication for use in committing suicide. But the widespread prohibition—not acceptance—of assisted suicide is deeply rooted in Massachusetts’ and the Nation’s history and tradition. And the vast majority of states and secular medical associations oppose it today.

• There is a fundamental difference between refusing medical treatment and assisted suicide.

Creating a right to physician-assisted suicide would not be a mere expansion of the right to refuse life-saving treatment. The right to reject treatment is based on the common-law right to reject a battery. And death occurs, if at all, by natural causes. Assisted suicide is different: it invites the intrusion of a lethal agent into the patient’s body, intentionally causing death.

• A right to assisted suicide cannot be a limited right as claimed by the appellants.

Appellants are wrong to suggest a constitutional right to assisted suicide could be limited to a narrow class of people. And that would create problems courts are not equipped to solve.

If there is a right to assisted suicide then it would be discriminatory to limit that right to certain groups of people, such as people who are terminally ill.

EPC - USA files brief to Massachusetts Supreme Court in the Kligler assisted suicide case.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Directive, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Link to the EPC-USA brief (Link).

In January 2020 the assisted suicide lobby appealed a Massachusetts Superior court decision which found that there was no right to assisted suicide in Massachusetts. 

Recently the Massachusetts Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and yesterday, EPC-USA submitted a brief in the Massachusetts Supreme Court in this case. 

The case known as Kligler concerns Dr Roger Kligler, who is living with prostate cancer and seeking death by assisted suicide and Dr Alan Schoenberg, who is willing to prescribe lethal drugs for Kligler to die by assisted suicide.  Kligler who claimed to be terminally ill when launching the case in 2016 remains alive today.

Kligler and Schoenberg are arguing that doctors cannot be prosecuted for prescribing lethal drugs for assisted suicide to a competent terminally ill person under the Massachusetts state constitution.

The EPC-USA brief agrues the following:

• There is no fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide in the Massachusetts Constitution.

The Appellants seek to establish a previously unrecognized right to “medical aid in dying,” where a doctor prescribes lethal medication for use in committing suicide. But the widespread prohibition—not acceptance—of assisted suicide is deeply rooted in Massachusetts’ and the Nation’s history and tradition. And the vast majority of states and secular medical associations oppose it today.

• There is a fundamental difference between refusing medical treatment and assisted suicide.

Creating a right to physician-assisted suicide would not be a mere expansion of the right to refuse life-saving treatment. The right to reject treatment is based on the common-law right to reject a battery. And death occurs, if at all, by natural causes. Assisted suicide is different: it invites the intrusion of a lethal agent into the patient’s body, intentionally causing death.

• A right to assisted suicide cannot be a limited right as claimed by the appellants.

Appellants are wrong to suggest a constitutional right to assisted suicide could be limited to a narrow class of people. And that would create problems courts are not equipped to solve.

In other words, if there is a right to assisted suicide then it would be discriminatory to limit that right to certain groups of people, such as people who are terminally ill.

At the time, of the lower court hearing, the Massachusetts Attorney General argued that this is a legislative not a judicial issue. 

EPC-USA warns that this case could overturn the US Supreme Court Glucksberg decision which found that there was no right to assisted suicide but a State had the right to legislate on the issue.

EPC-USA worked with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) to prepare the Amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Court in this case.