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.
This article was published by Choice is an Illusion on April 24, 2020.
Previous articles:
- New Jersey euthanasia act must be set-aside (Link).
- New Jersey appellate court lifts restraining order that stopped assisted suicide (Link).
- Court order temporarily stops assisted suicide in New Jersey (Link).
 |
| Margaret Dore |
To view Dore's brief as submitted, click here.
I. RELIEF REQUESTED
Margaret Dore moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order dated April 1, 2020, which upheld the constitutionality of the Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act.[1]
II. THE ACT MUST BE SET ASIDE
The Court did not reach the Act’s violation of the object in title rule, which is dispositive to set the Act aside. The Court should reach this issue now to overturn the Act.
The Court’s order states that Dore asked the Court to declare the Act unconstitutional “on grounds not asserted by plaintiffs.”[2] The plaintiffs, did, however, ask the Court to rule on the issue, stating:
Ms. Dore’s brief should be considered by the Court since if the law is unconstitutional under the single object rule, it should be the Court’s responsibility to raise that issue sua sponte even if not raised by Ms. Dore or the Plaintiffs.[3]
The Legislature understood that it was enacting a strictly voluntary law limited to assisted suicide for dying patients.[4] The prior judge expressed a similar view. See, for example, the transcript from the hearing on August 14, 2019 (“This case is not about euthanasia”).[5]
This case, however, is about euthanasia. The Act is also not limited to dying people. Patient voluntariness is allowed, but not required. These are material facts not disclosed by the Act’s title and related findings. The Act is unconstitutional and must be set aside.
III. WHAT THE ACT DOES
A. The Act Allows Physician-Assisted Suicide, Which It Terms Medical Aid in Dying
Dictionary definitions of “assisted suicide,” include “suicide committed by someone with assistance from another person especially: physician-assisted suicide.”[6] Dictionary definitions of physician-assisted suicide include the following:
[S]uicide by a patient facilitated by means (such as a drug prescription) or by information (such as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient's intent.[7]
Here, the Act allows this same practice, which it terms medical aid in dying. The Act, “Findings, Declarations Relative to Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill,” states:
[T]his State affirms the right of a qualified terminally ill patient, protected by appropriate safeguards, to obtain medication that the patient may choose to self-administer in order to bring about the patient’s humane and dignified death. (Emphasis added).[8]
The Act also specifically describes physician involvement to write the prescription for the lethal dose.[9] The bottom line, the Act allows physician-assisted suicide as traditionally defined, which it terms medical aid in dying.
B. The Act Legalizes Assisted Suicide as a “Right”
Again, the Act states:
[T]his State affirms the right of a qualified terminally ill patient, protected by appropriate safeguards, to obtain medication that the patient may choose to self-administer in order to bring about the patient’s humane and dignified death. (Emphasis added).[10]
If for the purpose of argument, this provision is limited to allowing voluntary assisted suicide (because it says that the patient may chose to self-administer the lethal medication), the Act will nonetheless also allow euthanasia due to assisted suicide being described as a “right.” This is true due to: (1) The New Mexico Supreme Court Decision, Morris v. Brandenburg, 376 P.3d 836 (2016); and (2) the Americans with Disability Act, both of which are discussed below.
1. Morris v. Brandenburg
The 5-0 decision states in part:
[W]e agree with the legitimate concern that recognizing a right to physician aid in dying will lead to voluntary or involuntary euthanasia because if it is a right, it must be made available to everyone, even when a duly appointed surrogate makes the decision, and even when the patient is unable to self-administer the life-ending medication. (Emphasis added).[11]
2. The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
The ADA is “a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in every day activities, including medical services.”[12] “Medical care providers are required to make their services available in an accessible manner.”[13]This includes:
Reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures to make healthcare services fully available to individuals with disabilities, unless the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the services (i.e., alter the essential nature of the services). (Emphasis added).[14]
Here, the Act legalized “medical aid in dying” as part of New Jersey healthcare.[15] If for the purpose of argument, the Act does in fact require self-administration, the ADA will require a reasonable accommodation for individuals unable to self-administer. This will mean administration by another person. The Act will thereby require euthanasia as traditionally defined.
IV. HOW THE ACT WORKS
The Act has an application process to obtain the lethal dose.[16] Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight.[17] No witness, not even a doctor, is required to present at the death.[18]
V. “ELIGIBLE” PERSONS MAY HAVE YEARS TO LIVE
The Act applies to “terminally ill” individuals. The Act states:
“Terminally ill” means that the patient is in the terminal stage of an irreversibly fatal illness, disease, or condition with a prognosis, based upon reasonable medical certainty, of a life expectancy of six months or less.[19]
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.[20] Also, sometimes doctors are wrong, as in way wrong.
Consider John Norton, diagnosed with ALS at age 18.[21] He was told that he would get progressively worse (be paralyzed) and die in three to five years.[22] Instead, the disease progression stopped on its own.[23] In a 2012 affidavit, at age 74, he 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.[24]
VI. ELDER ABUSE
A. Elder Abuse Is a Problem in New Jersey; Perpetrators Are Often Family Members
Elder abuse is a problem in New Jersey and throughout the United States.[25] Nationwide, prominent cases include actor Mickey Rooney and New York philanthropist, Brooke Astor.[26]
Perpetrators are often family members.[27] They typically start out with small crimes, such as stealing jewelry and blank checks, before moving on to larger items or to coercing victims to change their wills or to liquidate their assets.[28] Amy Mix, of the AARP Legal Counsel of the Elderly, states:
[Perpetrators] are family members, lots are friends, often people who befriend a senior through church .... We had a senior victim who had given her life savings away to some scammer who told her that she’d won the lottery and would have to pay the taxes ahead of time.... The scammer found the victim using information in her husband’s obituary.[29]
B. Elder Abuse Is Rarely Reported, Victims Don’t Want to Report Their Children as Abusers
The vast majority of elder abuse cases are not reported to the authorities. Reasons include:
[F]ear of retaliation, lack of physical and/or cognitive ability to report, or because they don’t want to get the abuser (90% of whom are family members) in trouble. (Emphasis added).[30]
C. Elder Abuse Is Sometimes Fatal
In some cases, elder abuse is fatal. More notorious cases include California’s “black widow” murders, in which two women took out life insurance policies on homeless men.[31] Their first victim was 73 year old Paul Vados, whose death was staged to look like a hit and run accident.[32] The women collected $589,124.93.[33]
Consider also, People v. Stuart in which an adult child killed her mother with a pillow, so as to inherit. The Court observed:
Financial considerations [are] an all too common motivation for killing someone.[34]
VII. PENALTIES PROVIDE A DETERRENT; NOT THE ACT
While elder abuse is a largely uncontrolled problem, there are penalties for doing it and when perpetrators are caught, they can be punished. The California black widows and the adult child who killed her mother with a pillow, discussed above, served prison time. With a risk of punishment, there is a deterrent to protect other potential victims from harm.
This is in contrast to the Act, in which purported protections are illusory, which renders potential victims sitting ducks to their adult children and other predators, without recourse. See below.
VIII. THE ACT IS STACKED AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL
A. “Even If a Patient Struggled, Who Would Know?”
The Act has no oversight over administration of the lethal dose.[35] In addition, the drugs used are water and alcohol soluble, such that they can be injected into a sleeping or restrained person without consent.[36] Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, puts it this way:
With assisted suicide laws in Washington and Oregon [and with the 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).[37]
B. Someone Else Is Allowed to Communicate on the Patient’s Behalf
The Act uses the word, “capable,” which is specially defined to allow other people to communicate on the patient’s behalf, as long as they are “familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating.” The Act states:
“Capable” means having the capacity to make health care decisions and to communicate them to a health care provider, including communication through persons familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating if those persons are available. (Emphasis added).[38]
Being familiar with a patient’s manner of communicating is a very minimal standard. Consider, for example, a doctor’s assistant who is familiar with a 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 the patient’s behalf during the lethal dose request process. The patient would not necessarily be in control of his or her fate.
C. Purported Protections Are Illusory
The Act says that the attending physician is to ensure that all “appropriate” steps are carried out in “accordance” with the Act as necessary. The Act states:
The attending physician shall ensure that all appropriate steps are carried out in accordance with the provisions of [the Act] . . . including such actions as are necessary to: . . .
(6) recommend that the patient participate in a consultation concerning concurrent or additional treatment opportunities . . . [and]
(8) inform the patient of the patient’s opportunity to rescind the request . . . . (Emphasis added).[39]
The Act does not define "appropriate" or “accordance.”[40] Dictionary definitions of appropriate include "suitable or proper” in the circumstances.[41] Dictionary definitions of accordance include “in the spirit of,” meaning “in thought or intention.”[42]
With these definitions, the attending physician’s view of what is "suitable or proper" is enough for compliance with patient protections. The physician's "thought or intention" is similarly sufficient. The purported protections are neutralized to whatever an attending physician happens to feel is appropriate and/or had a thought or intention to do. The “protections” are unenforceable.
D. Deaths in Accordance With the Act Are “Natural” as a Matter of Law
1. Action taken in accordance with the Act is not suicide or homicide
The Act states:
Any action taken in accordance with the provisions of [the Act] shall not constitute patient abuse or neglect, suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing, euthanasia, or homicide under any law of this State. (Emphasis added).[43]
2. The Act requires deaths to be reported as “natural”
In New Jersey, death certificates have five categories for reporting the manner of death, four of which are substantive: (1) natural; (2) accident; (3) suicide; and (4) homicide.[44] The fifth category is “undetermined.”[45]
As noted in the preceding section, a death occurring in accordance with the Act does not constitute suicide or homicide under any law of the State. The death is also not an accident due its having been an intended event. This leaves “natural.” Deaths occurring pursuant to the Act are natural as a matter of law.
E. Dr. Shipman and the Call for Death Certificate Reform
Per a 2005 article in the UK’s Guardian newspaper, there was a public inquiry regarding Dr. Harold Shipman, which determined that he had “killed at least 250 of his patients over 23 years.”[46] The inquiry also found:
that by issuing death certificates stating natural causes, the serial killer [Shipman] was able to evade investigation by coroners. (Emphasis added). [47]
Per a subsequent article in 2015, proposed reforms included having a medical examiner review death certificates, so as to improve patient safety.[48] The New Jersey Act has instead moved in the opposite direction to require that deaths be reported as natural. Doctors and other perpetrators have been enabled to kill under mandatory legal cover.
F. The Act Renders New Jersey Residents Sitting Ducks to Their Heirs and Other Predators
New Jersey’s slayer statute prevents a killer from inheriting from his or her victim. The statute states:
[A]n individual who is responsible for the intentional killing of the decedent forfeits [his or her inheritance].”[49]
The rational is that a criminal should not be allowed to benefit from his or her crime.[50]
Under the Act, however, a person who intentionally kills another person is allowed to inherit. This is due to the deaths being certified as natural. With the passage of the Act, New Jersey residents with money, meaning the middle class and above, have been rendered sitting ducks to their heirs and other predators.
IX. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A. My Clients Suffered Trauma in Oregon and Washington State
I have had two cases where my clients suffered trauma due to legal assisted suicide. In the first case, one side of my client’s family wanted her father 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 he should kill himself. My client was severely traumatized. The father did not take the lethal dose and died a natural death.
In the other case, my client’s father died via the lethal dose at a suicide party. It’s not clear, however, that administration of the lethal dose was voluntary. A man who was present told my client that his father had refused to take the lethal dose when it was delivered, stating: "You're not killing me. I'm going to bed." The man also said that my client’s father took the lethal dose the next night when he (the father) was already intoxicated on alcohol. The man who told this to my client subsequently changed his story.
My client, although he was not present, was traumatized over the incident, and also by the sudden loss of his father.
B. In Oregon, Other Suicides Have Increased with Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide
Government reports from Oregon show a positive correlation between the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and an increase in other (conventional) suicides. This correlation is consistent with a suicide contagion in which legalizing physician-assisted suicide encouraged other suicides.[51]
C. The Felony for Undue Influence Is Illusory
The Act has a felony for “undue influence,” which is not defined and has no elements of proof. The Act merely states:
A person who . . . exerts undue influence on a patient to request medication pursuant to [the Act] or to destroy a rescission of a request is guilty of a crime of the third degree. (Emphasis added).[52]
The Act also specifically allows conduct normally used to prove undue influence. For example, the Act allows an infirm person with a terminal disease to request the lethal dose. Physical weakness is a factor generally used to PROVE undue influence.[53]
How do you prove that undue influence occurred when the Act does not define it, and the Act also allows conduct generally used to prove it? You can’t. The felony for undue influence is illusory and unenforceable.
X. THE ACT VIOLATES THE OBJECT IN TITLE RULE
As noted supra, the New Jersey Constitution governs permissible legislative conduct when enacting legislation. To that end, the Constitution sets forth the object in title rule, as follows:
To avoid improper influences which may result from intermixing in one and the same act such things as have no proper relation to each other, every law shall embrace but one object, and that [object] shall be expressed in the title. (Emphasis added).[54]
The rule is designed to protect against the misleading of the people. State v Guida, 119 N.J.L. 464, 465-466 (1938), states:
The sole requirement is that [the title] ‘shall express its object in a general way so as to be intelligible to the ordinary reader’; and it is the settled rule that a statute will not be judicially declared inoperative and unenforceable on this ground unless the deficiency plainly exists. (Emphasis added).
In the case at bar, the deficiency plainly exists. The Legislature, the Attorney General and the prior court were all mislead by the Act’s deceptive title, implying that the Act is limited to voluntary assisted suicide, when the Act also allows non-voluntary euthanasia. This Court has also been mislead. The Act must be set aside.
Respectfully submitted this 18th day of April 2020
Margaret Dore Esq., MBA, appearing pro se
Law Office of Margaret K. Dore, PS
1001 4th Avenue, Suite 4400
Seattle, WA 98154
206 697 1217
Footnotes:
[1] The Act is attached in the brief's appendix, at pages A-1 to A-15.
[2] The Order, page 35, attached in the brief's appendix, at page A-20.
[3] Letter from E. David Smith, Esq., to Judge Lougy, dated March 20, 2020, in the brief's appendix at page A-23.
[4] See for example, the Order on Emergent Motion, Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, August 27, 2019 (“the process is entirely voluntary on the part of all participants, including patients...”). Attached in the brief's appendix at page A-63.
[5] Transcript attached in the brief's appendix at page A-62.
[6] Merriam-Webster, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-27; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assisted%20suicide?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld
[7] Merriam-Webster, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-28.
[8] The Act, Section C.26:16-2, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-1.
[9] The Act, Section C.26:16-6, states:
The attending physician shall ensure that all appropriate steps are carried out in accordance with the provisions of [the Act] before writing a prescription for medication that a qualified terminally ill patient may choose to self-administer pursuant to [the Act]. (Attached in the brief's appendix at page A-4).
[10] The Act, page 1, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-1
[11] Morris v. Brandenburg, 376 P.3d 836, 848 (2016).
[12] U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Americans with Disabilities Act: Access to Medical Care for Individuals with Mobility Disabilities,” July 2010, available at https://www.ada.gov/medcare_mobility_ta/medcare_ta.htm
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] The Act, Findings, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-1.
[16] See the Act, attached in the brief's appendix at pp. A-3 to A-7.
[17] See the Act in its entirety, in the brief's appendix at pp. A-1 to A-15.
[18] Id.
[19] The Act, C.26:16-3, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-3.
[20] Cf. Jessica Firger, "12 Million Americans Misdiagnosed Each Year," CBS NEWS, April 17, 2014, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-29; and 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?,” The Seattle Weekly, 01/14/09, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-30 to A-33.
[21] Affidavit of John Norton, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-34 to A-36.
[22] Id., ¶ 1.
[23] Id., ¶ 4.
[24] Id., ¶ 5.
[25] See e.g., Dansky Katz Ringold York, Attorneys at Law, Marlton New Jersey, “How to Spot and Prevent Elder Financial Abuse,” April 27, 2016, at https://njlegalhelp.com/how-to-spot-and-prevent-elder-financial-abuse; and Beth Fitzgerald, “New Jersey Considers Law to Prevent ‘Granny Snatching,’” New Jersey Spotlight, MAY 21, 2012, http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/0520/2037/
[26] Tom Cohen, “Mickey Rooney tells [U.S.] Senate panel he was a victim of elder abuse,” CNN, March 2, 2011; Carole Fleck, “Brooke Astor’s Grandson Tells Senate Panel of Financial Abuse,” AARP Bulletin Today, 02/05/2015 (“The grandson of socialite Brooke Astor, who blew the whistle on his father for plundering millions from his grandmother’s estate, told the Senate panel Wednesday that his grandmother’s greatest legacy may be the national attention focused on elder financial abuse.”), and Matthew Talbot, “Issues of Prosecuting Elder Abuse: The Casey Kasem Case,” Talbot Law Group, PC, January 4, 2016, available at
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/issues-prosecuting-elder-abuse-casey-kasem-case-matthew-talbot
[27] Id., MetLife Mature Market Institute, “Broken Trust: Elders, Familyand Finances, A Study on Elder Abuse Prevention,” March 2009, at http://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/mmi-broken-trust.pdf
[28] Id.
[29] Kathryn Alfisi, “Breaking the Silence on Elder Abuse,” Washington Lawyer, February 2015.
[30] “Adult Protective Services: Facts and Fiction,” Division of Aging Services, NJ Department of Human Services, available at
http://www.nj.gov/humanservices/dmahs/home/Adult_Protective_Services_Training.pdf
[31] See People v. Rutterschmidt, 55 Cal.4th 650 (2012). See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Widow_Murders
[32] Rutterschmidt, at 652-3.
[33] Id. at 652.
[34] 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 129, 143 (2007), available at
https://www.leagle.com/decision/200719667calrptr3d1291182
[35] See the Act in its entirety, attached in the brief's appendix at A-1 to A-15.
[36] The drugs used include Secobarbital, Pentobarbital and Phenobarbital, which are water and/or alcohol soluble. See excerpt from Oregon’s and Washington’s annual reports, attached hereto at A-41 & A-42 (listing these drugs). 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
[37] Alex Schadenberg, Letter to the Editor, “Elder abuse a growing problem,” The Advocate, Official Publication of the Idaho State Bar, October 2010, page 14.
[38] The Act, C.26:16-3, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-2.
[39] Attached in the brief's appendix at page A-4.
[40] See the Act in its entirety, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-1 through A-15.
[41] Attached in the brief's appendix at page A-43.
[42] Attached in the brief's appendix at pages 44 and A-45.
[43] The Act, C.26:16-17.a.(2), attached in the brief's appendix at page A-9.
[44] Andrew L. Falzon, MD, and Sindy M. Paul, MPH, “Death Investigation and Certification in New Jersey,” MD Advisor, a journal for the New Jersey medical community, 2016. (Attached in the brief's appendix at page A-46).
[45] Id.
[46] 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 brief's appendix at pages A-47 to A-49).
[47] Id., attached in the brief's appendix at page A-49.
[48] Press Association, “Death Certificate Reform Delays ‘Incomprehensible,”
The Guardian, January 21, 2015, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-50 to A-51.
[49] NJ Rev Stat § 3B:7-1.1, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-52 and A-53.
[50] Cf. Ilene S. Cooper and Jaclene D'Agostino, "Forfeiture and New York's 'Slayer Rule', NYSBA Journal, March/April 2015, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-54.
[51] For a more information, see Margaret Dore, “In Oregon, Other Suicides Have Increased with Legalization of Assisted Suicide,” August 18, 2017, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-55 to A-57. See also the Declaration of Williard Johnston, MD, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-58 to A-60.
[52] Attached in the brief's appendix at page A-10.
[53] Cf. Neugebauer v. Neugebauer, 804 N.W.2d 450, ¶17 (2011)(“physical . . . weakness is always material upon the question of undue influence”).
This article was published by Choice is an Illusion on March 27, 2020.
 |
| Margaret Dore |
On March 24, 2020, a hearing was held in Glassman v Grewal, a lawsuit, which seeks to invalidate New Jersey's euthanasia law, formally known as the "Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act."
The specific matter before the court was a motion to dismiss brought by the defendant, New Jersey Attorney General, Gurbir S. Grewal.
The plaintiff, Joseph Glassman, represented by E. David Smith, opposed the motion, as did Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, representing herself as amicus curiae.
Dore, who had filed both an amicus brief and a reply brief, argued that the Act must be set aside pursuant to the New Jersey Constitution. Her arguments largely tracked her reply brief, a portion of which is set forth below.
The Court took the matter under advisement.
* * *
Reply Brief Excerpt (web version):
B. The Act’s Title Is Misleading and Therefore Unconstitutional
The Act’s title, the “Medical Aid in Dying For the Terminally Ill Act,” implies that the Act is limited to the “dying” and the “terminally ill.”[6] As described in Dore’s amicus brief, the Act also applies to people with years or decades to live.[7] For this reason alone, the title is misleading and therefore unconstitutional. The Act must be set aside.
C. Contrary to the Attorney General, the Act Allows Euthanasia
Euthanasia as traditionally defined is the administration of a lethal agent by another person.[8] The Attorney General claims that the Act does not allow euthanasia.[9] This claim is wrong for the following reasons:
1. The Act’s name means euthanasia The Act’s name, “Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act,” contains the phrase “Aid in Dying.”
Aid in Dying is a traditional euphemism for active euthanasia. See, for example: Craig A. Brandt, Model Aid-in-Dying Act, Iowa Law Review, 1989 (“Subject: Active Euthanasia ....”)[10]
For this reason alone, the Act allows euthanasia.
2. The Act allows euthanasia as traditionally defined The Act refers to the lethal dose as “medication.”[11] Generally accepted medical practice allows other people, including doctors and adult children, to administer medication.[12]
If the medication administered is a lethal dose, this is euthanasia as traditionally defined.
3. The Act does not require self-administration. The ADA would trump any such requirement Nothing in the Act says that self-administration is required.[13] If it were, the Americans with Disability Act [ADA] would trump the requirement to allow euthanasia for people unable to self-administer.[14] For this reason also, the Act allows euthanasia as traditionally defined.
D. Voluntariness Is Not Assured
The Attorney General claims that the Act is “strictly voluntary” for patients, which is not true.[15] As previously discussed in Dore’s amicus brief, a more obvious reason is the Act’s complete lack of oversight at the death.[16] If the patient objected or even struggled, who would know?
E. Purported Patient Protections Are Illusory
The Act sets forth patient protections, including a formal application process to obtain the lethal dose.[17] Per the Act, the attending physician:
shall ensure that all appropriate steps are carried out in accordance with the provisions of [the Act] before writing a prescription for [the lethal dose].[18]
The Act does not define “accordance.”[19] Dictionary definitions include “in the spirit of,” meaning “in thought or intention.”[20] With these definitions, the physician’s mere thought or intention to comply with patient protections is good enough. Actual compliance is not required. Purported patient protections are illusory.
F. Deaths in Accordance With the Act Are “Natural” as a Matter of Law.
1. Action taken in accordance with the Act is not suicide or homicide The Act states:
Any action taken in accordance with the provisions of [the Act] shall not constitute ... suicide ... or homicide under any law of this State.[21]
2. The Act requires deaths to be reported as “natural” In New Jersey, death certificates have five categories for reporting the manner of death, four of which are substantive: (1) natural; (2) accident; (3) suicide; and (4) homicide.[22] The fifth category is “undetermined.”[23]
As noted in the preceding section, a death occurring in accordance with the Act does not constitute suicide or homicide under any law of the State. The death is also not an accident due its having been an intended event. This leaves “natural.” Deaths occurring pursuant to the Act are natural as a matter of law.
G. Dr. Shipman and the Call for Death Certificate Reform
Per a 2005 article in the UK’s Guardian newspaper, there was a public inquiry regarding Dr. Harold Shipman, ... determining that he had “killed at least 250 of his patients over 23 years.”[24] The inquiry also found:
that by issuing death certificates stating natural causes, the serial killer [Shipman] was able to evade investigation by coroners. (Emphasis added).[25]
Per a subsequent article in 2015, proposed reforms included having a medical examiner review death certificates, so as to improve patient safety.[26] The New Jersey Act has instead moved in the opposite direction to require that deaths be reported as natural. Doctors and other perpetrators have been enabled to kill under mandatory legal cover.
H. The Act Renders New Jersey Residents Sitting Ducks to Their Heirs and Other Predators
New Jersey’s slayer statute prevents a killer from inheriting from his or her victim. The statute states:
[A]n individual who is responsible for the intentional killing of the decedent forfeits [his or her inheritance].”[27]
The rational is that a criminal should not be allowed to benefit from his or her crime.[28]
Under the Act, however, a person who intentionally kills another person is allowed to inherit. This is due to the deaths being certified as natural. With the passage of the Act, New Jersey residents with money, meaning the middle class and above, have been rendered sitting ducks to their heirs and other predators.
Footnotes:
....
[6] The Act, N.J.S.A. 26:16-1, attached in the appendix at p. A-2.
[7] Dore’s Amicus Brief, dated 12/19/19, Section IX, pp. 6 to 8.
[8] AMA Code of Medical Ethics Opinion, 5.8, in the appendix at page A-17. (“Euthanasia is the administration of a lethal agent by another person....”).
[9] The Attorney General’s letter brief, dated February 4, 2020, page 8, states:
Dore’s argument that the Act violates the single object rule is premised on her misstatement that the Act permits involuntary participation and euthanasia. (Emphasis added). [10] Georgetown University information pages, summarizing the Brandt and CeloCruz articles, in the appendix at pages A-18 and A-19.
[11] The Act, attached in the appendix, at pages A-2 through A-16, referring to the lethal dose as medication throughout its text.
[12] Dr. Kenneth Stevens states:
Generally accepted medical practice allows a doctor, or a person acting under the direction of a doctor, to administer prescription drugs to a patient.
Common examples of persons acting under the direction of a doctor, include: ... adult children who act under the direction of a doctor to administer drugs to their parents in a home setting. Declaration of Kenneth Stevens, MD, attached in the appendix at pp. A-20 to A-22, quote at page A-22, ¶ 10 (spacing changed).
[13] See the Act in its entirety, attached in the appendix, at pp. A-2 through A-16.
[14] Dore’s Amicus Brief, pp. 10-11.
[15] The Attorney General‘s letter brief, dated February 4, 2020, page 8.
[16] See the Act in its entirety, in the appendix at pp. A-2 to A-16.
[17] The Act, in the appendix at pp. A-4 through A-8.
[18] Id., in the appendix, at page A-5.
[19] See the Act in its entirety, in the appendix, at pp. A-2 through A-16.
[20] Definitions attached in the appendix at pp. A-24 and A-25.
[21] The Act, C.26:16-17.a.(2), attached in the appendix at page A-10.
[22] Andrew L. Falzon, MD, and Sindy M. Paul, MPH, “Death Investigation and Certification in New Jersey,” MD Advisor, a journal for the New Jersey medical community, 2016. (Attached in the appendix at page A-25)
[23] Id.
[24] 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 pages at A-26 to A-28).
[25] Id., attached at A-28.
[26] Press Association, “Death Certificate Reform Delays ‘Incomprehensible,” The Guardian, January 21, 2015, attached in the appendix at A-29 to A-30.
[27] NJ Rev Stat § 3B:7-1.1, attached in the appendix at pages A-31 and A-32.
[28] Cf. Ilene S. Cooper and Jaclene D'Agostino, "Forfeiture and New York's 'Slayer Rule', NYSBA Journal, March/April 2015
Media Release: Concord, New Hampshire, USA
Dore: “Persons assisting a suicide or euthanasia can have an agenda to benefit themselves. More obvious reasons include inheritance money and life insurance.”
“The Act will apply to people with years or decades to live.”
Contact: Margaret Dore, Esq.
margaretdore@margaretdore.com
(206) 697-1217
 |
| Margaret Dore |
Attorney Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, which has fought against assisted suicide and euthanasia legalization efforts in many states, made the following statement in connection with a bill seeking to legalize these practices in New Hampshire. (HB 1659).
Wednesday, 02/12/20, 1:00 P.M., SH Rm Reps Hall, House Judiciary.
“The proposed Death With Dignity Act seeks to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia as those terms are traditionally defined,” said Dore. “If passed into law, the Act will apply to people with years or decades to live.”
Dore explained,
“The Act is based on a similar law in Oregon, applying to people with a terminal disease expected to cause death within six months. In practice, such predictions are often wrong. This is due to actual mistakes and the fact that predicting life expectancy is not an exact science."
“Perhaps more importantly," said Dore, "the six months to live is determined without treatment. Consider Jeanette Hall, who was diagnosed with cancer in 2000. She made a settled decision to use Oregon’s law, but her doctor convinced her to be treated for cancer instead. Today, nineteen years later, she is thrilled to be alive.”
Dore said,
“Persons assisting a suicide or euthanasia can have an agenda to benefit themselves. More obvious reasons include inheritance money and life insurance.”
“Medical professionals too can have an agenda,” said Dore. “Michael Swango, MD, now incarcerated, got a thrill from killing his patients. 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.”
Dore said,
“People who sign up for the lethal dose do not necessarily intend to take it. Sometimes they make the request at the suggestion of a doctor or family member, ‘just in case' they want to use it.’”
“Once the lethal dose is in the home, there is a complete lack of oversight,” said Dore. “No witness, not even a doctor, is required to be present at the death. If the patient objected or even struggled against administration, who would know?”
Dore said,
“The death certificate will report a natural death, which will create a legal cover up and also allow a perpetrator to inherit. More to the point, the Act will create a perfect crime.”
“Consider also a 2005 article in the UK’s Guardian newspaper regarding a public inquiry of Dr. Shipman’s conduct,” said Dore. “The inquiry determined that he ‘killed at least 250 of his patients over 23 years.’ The inquiry also found ‘that by issuing death certificates stating natural causes, the serial killer [Shipman] was able to evade investigation by coroners.’”
Dore continued,
“According to a subsequent article in 2015, proposed reforms included having a medical examiner review death certificates to improve patient safety. Instead, the proposed Act moves in the opposite direction to require a legal cover up as a matter of law.”
Dore concluded,
“If the New Hampshire Act becomes law, there will be new paths of lethal abuse and exploitation, especially for older people with money, meaning the middle class and above. They will be sitting ducks to their heirs and other predators. Even if you like the concept of assisted suicide and euthanasia, the proposed Act is a recipe for abuse, exploitation and legal murder.”
-00-
